^*$* 


- 


PRESENTED  TO  THE 


Library  ol  the  University  of  Calilornia, 


!1 


1 


UVfVs 

AN    EXAMINATION 


OF 


CANON    LIDDON'S 


BAMPTON     LECTURES 


ON 


THE    DIVINITY   OF    OUR   LORD   AND    SAVIOUR 
JESUS    CHRIST. 


BY 


A    CLERGYMAN    OF    THE    CHURCH    OF    ENGLAND. 


"  Prove  all  things ;  hold  fast  that  which  is  good."  —  ST.  PAUL. 

"  The  licence  of  affirmation  about  God  and  His  proceedings,  in  which  the  religious 
world  indulge,  is  more  and  more  met  hy  the  demand  for  verification. 

"Assertions  in  scientific  language  must  stand  the  test  of  scientific  examination." 

MATTHEW  ARNOLD. 


BOSTON: 

LITTLE,    BROWN,   AND    COMPANY. 

1872. 


JOHN    WILSON    AND    SON, 

Cambridge. 


PREFACE. 


IN  theological  controversy  a  disputant  does  not  necessarily 
deny  the  truth  of  a  tenet,  by  denying  the  tenet  to  be  sus 
ceptible  of  a  particular  kind  of  proof.  Different  schools 
of  reasoners  may  erect  the  same  dogma  on  different  bases, 
and  the  very  men  who  refuse  to  admit  the  soundness  of 
one  basis  may  resolutely  cling  to  the  dogma  in  connection 
with  another.  Methods  of  exposition  are,  moreover,  to 
be  asses-sed  from  the  position  occupied  by  the  expositor. 
Protestants  cannot,  without  grave  fault,  adopt  a  scheme 
of  interpretation  wherein  the  Church's  subsequent  defini 
tions  determine  and  amplify  the  meaning  of  the  New 
Testament ;  and  the  meaning  of  the  New  Testament, 
thus  settled,  throws  significance  into  the  Old.  Avowed 
acceptance  of  such  a  scheme  would  be  repudiation  of 
Protestant  principles,  and  application  of  it,  without  avowed 
acceptance,  would  betray  either  gross  ignorance,  or  dis 
honesty  ;  but  a  Catholic  can  blamelessly  follow  the  method 
from  which  Protestants  are  debarred.  Father  Newman, 
in  a  "  Letter  "  called  forth  by  Dr.  Pusey's  Eirenicon, 
declares  even  of  the  great  St.  Athanasius,  —  "I  am  sure 
that  he  frequently  adduces  passages  as  proofs  of  points 
in  controversy,  which  no  one  would  see  to  be  proofs,  unless 


IV  PREFACE. 

Apostolical  tradition  were  taken  into  account,  first  as  sug 
gesting,  then  as  authoritatively  ruling,  their  meaning." 

The  question  discussed  in  this  volume  is  obviously  one 
of  primary  importance,  and  has  every  claim  to  be  treated 
with  candid,  searching  fearlessness.  And  it  is  not  a  ques 
tion  merely  for  scholars  and  students  in  Theology ;  it  is 
also  within  the  reach  of  every  intelligent  Christian  who 
will  honestly  search  the  Scriptures,  using  the  very  acces 
sible  helps  to  the  ascertainment  of  true  Text  and  true 
translation,  which  now  surround  us. 

No  one  acquainted  with  history  and  plain  facts  will 
affirm  that  the  formulated  dogma  of  Christ's  Deity  has 
ever  yet  undergone  the  ordeal  of  free  inquiry.  However 
securely  it  may  repose  on  the  authority  of  a  Church  com 
missioned  to  reveal,  it  certainly  has  not  acquired  the  un 
answerable  evidence  which  real,  long  continued  exposure 
to  re-examination,  modification,  and  disproof,  furnishes. 
It  has  no  pretensions  to  stand  before  the  world  as  the  pure 
net  result  of  investigation  freely  applied  throughout  the 
Christian  Ages.  From  the  Fourth  Century  to  the  present 
hour,  the  dogma  has  been  mainly  upheld  by  modes  of 
external  force  ;  and  though  among  Protestants  this  force 
is  rapidly  diminishing,  it  still  exists,  and  exerts  in  Ortho 
dox  circles  a  very  perceptible  pressure. 

In  handling  a  fundamental  topic,  inseparable,  within 
the  Reformed  Churches,  from  immediate  and  practical 
issues,  I  have  taken  no  pains  to  be  reserved  and  unreal. 
I  shall  therefore,  doubtless,  incur  the  censure  of  those 
stunted  and  stationary  Protestants  who,  unhappily  for 
their  own  peace  of  mind,  cannot  bar  out  reasonable  inter 
pretation,  though  they  do  approach  the  Bible  with  warily 
contrived  and  wholly  unwarranted  preliminary  assump- 


PREFACE.  V 

lions.  But  much  of  what  I  have  written  will  probably 
gain  the  approval  both  of  genuine  Catholics  and  of  pro 
gressive  Protestants.  And  if  I  have  not  despicably  failed 
in  executing  my  purpose,  my  work  will  contribute  to  meet 
an  existing  need,  and  be  welcome  to  students  who  deem 
love  of  truth  a  part  of  piety,  and  dread  of  inquiry  a  sure 
indication  of  faith's  decay. 

I  expect  to  be  credited  with  bad  motives,  but  that, 
among  Christians,  is  a  small  matter.  Our  best  intentions 
can  never  be  wholly  free  from  defects  and  demerits,  but 
I  possess  the  testimony  of  a  good  conscience,  and  know 
that  I  have  written,  and  am  now  publishing,  from  motives 
which  I  can  trustingly  entreat  our  Father  in  Heaven  to 
behold  and  bless. 

The  reasonings  and  expositions  criticised  are  copiously, 
and  I  believe  fairly,  exhibited,  so  that  my  "  Examination" 
presents,  to  an  unusual  extent,  arguments  on  both  sides ; 
but  I  wish  to  be  read  in  company  with  the  Bampton 
Lectures  for  1866.  Reading  cannot  always  be  extensive; 
but  purely  one-sided  reading,  in  controversies  of  vital 
interest,  is  always  an  evil ;  it  can  never  make  soundly 
instructed  teachers  of  religion,  and  is  not  unlikely  to  mar 
good  men. 

Later  editions  of  Mr.  Liddon's  Lectures  appear  to  be 
reprints  from  the  second — the  thoroughly  revised,  and 
presumedly  final  shape  of  his  work.  I  have  used  the  third 
edition. 

The  indexes  of  "  Texts  specially  referred  to,"  "  Quota 
tions,"  &c.,  will,  it  is  hoped,  render  reference  easy. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER    I. 

INTRODUCTORY. 

The  fault  of  Mr.  Liddon's  position,  and  the  point  of  view  from  which 
alone  this  Examination  of  his  Lectures  is  pursued.  —  The  superiority 
of  the  Catholic  as  compared  with  the  Protestant  basis  for  the  main 
tenance  of  Orthodoxy.  —  Progress  of  Anglican  opinion  regarding  the 
Bible's  insufficiency.  —  Difficulty,  alarm,  and  mischief  engendered 
by  the  attempt  to  ally  Protestant  principle  with  Orthodox  faith.  — 
The  doctrine  Mr.  Liddon  undertakes  to  defend,  a  crucial  test  of  the 
worth  of  this  attempted  alliance.  —  Defective  Education  in  relation 
to  the  doctrine,  of  both  the  Anglican  Clergy  and  Orthodox  Non- 
conforming  Ministers.  —  Some  plausible  evasions,  &c.,  which  are 
made  to  fill  the  place  of  arguments,  noticed.  —  Premature  assertions 
of  the  spiritual  inefficiency  of  Christian  Theism  as  compared  with 
Protestant  Orthodoxy.  —  The  obligation  of  the  clergy  of  the  Estab 
lished  Church  to  Faith  in  Christ's  Godhead,  impaired  by  the  Church's 
acceptance  of  conflicting  fundamental  principles.  —  Excessive  im 
position  of  dogmatic  propositions  has  resulted  in  sanctioned 
laxity  of  assent.  —  The  Anglican  Via  Media  stated  and  criticised.  — 
Appeal  to  Orthodox  Protestants,  from  the  ground  of  fairness,  facts, 
and  policy. —  Some  further  remarks  on  characteristics  of  Mr. 
Liddon's  Lectures,  and  on  the  aim,  occasion,  and  method  of  this 
Examination Page  I 

CHAPTER  II. 

Precise  statement  of  the  dogma  maintained,  and  of  some  more  general 
objections  to  which  it  is  exposed.  —  Mr.  Liddon's  theories  respecting 
the  organic  unity,  perfect  trustworthiness,  and  minute  accuracy  of 
the  Scripture  records,  not  sustainable  in  the  presence  of  free  inquiry. 


Vlll  CONTENTS. 

—  His  argument  for  the  Apostolic  authorship  of  the  Fourth  Gospel 
considered,  and  some  leading  points  of  adverse  evidence  stated.  —  On 
this  topic,  Orthodox  preconceptions  have  the  practical  advantage  of 
forbidding  intelligent  criticism.  —  Though  Mr.  Liddon's  method  is 
critically  unsound,  and  devised  for  the  service  of  his  dogma,  he  may 
nevertheless  be  met  upon  his  own  assumptions,  and  convicted  of 
arbitrary  and  irrational  interpretation  of  Scripture 37 


CHAPTER  III. 

Supposed  intimations  in  the  Old  Testament  of  the  existence  of  a  Plu 
rality  of  Persons  within  the  One  Divine  Essence.  —  The  plural  form 
of  the  Name  of  God  (Elohim).  —  Significance  of  the  Theophanies. — 
Imagined  Personality  of  the  Divine  Wisdom,  as  depicted  in  the 
Hebrew  Canonical  Books  and  the  Apocrypha.  —  The  Logos  of  Philo, 
Judaeus,  and  the  probable  relation  of  Philo's  speculations  to  the 
Fourth  Gospel.  —  Periods  of  Messianic  Prophecy  in  the  Jewish 
Canon.  —  Supposed  evidence  for  Christ's  Deity  in  the  Psalms,  fsaiah, 
Jeremiah,  Haggai,  Zechariah,  and  Malachi,  examined.  —  Reckless 
and  unwarranted  reference,  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Liddon,  to  Rabbinical 
literature  .  ,  .  56 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Brief  criticism  of  the  argument  entitled,  "  Our  Lord's  work  in  the  world 
a  witness  to  His  Divinity."  —  Christ's  authority  and  kingship.  — 
Characteristic  "  originality  and  audacity  "  of  His  teaching  and  plan. 
—  Evidence  for  the  contemplated  universality  of  His  kingdom. — 
Difficulties  attaching  to  the  supposition  that  genuine  words  of  Christ 
are  recorded  in  St.  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20.  —  Are  the  "Synoptical 
accounts  of  our  Lord's  Nativity  in  essential  unison  with  the  Chris  tol- 
ogy  of  St.  John's  Gospel  ? "  —  The  argument  concerning  the  "  Doc 
trine  of  the  Eternal  Word  in  the  Prologue  of  St.  John's  Gospel " 
examined.  —  Strong  contrasts  between  the  accounts  in  the  Synoptists, 
and  in  the  last  Gospel,  of  the  time  and  manner  in  which  our  Lord's 
Messiahship  was  freely  made  known.  —  The  reasonable  conclusion 
from  a  general  view  of  his  Gospel  is,  that  the  latest  Evangelist  did 
not  intend  in  his  Prologue  to  affirm  the  absolute  Deity  of  the  Logos 
or  Word  .  .88 


CONTENTS.  IX 


CHAPTER  V.  . 

Discussion  of  texts  supposed  "  expressly  to  assert  the  doctrine  of  Our 
Lord's  Divinity ; "  viz.,  1  John  v.  20 ;  Titus  ii.  13  ;  Romans  ix.  5 ; 
Philippians  ii.  6-11.  —  Examination  of  Mr.  Liddon's  exposition  of 
passages  in  the  Epistles  to  the  Colossians  and  Hebrews,  and  in  the 
Apocalypse 109 

CHAPTER  VI. 

Illuminative  action  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  presumed  resulting  unity  of 
Apostolic  doctrine.  —  The  "  incidental  expressions  implying  a  high 
Christology  in  St.  James's  Epistle,"  considered.  —  Supposed  evidence 
favoring  the  dogma  of  Christ's  Godhead,  in  St.  Peter's  Missionary 
Sermons.  —  Difficulty  involved  in  the  constant  ascription  of  our 
Lord's  Resurrection  to  the  power  of  the  Almighty  Father. —  How 
far  are  John  ii.  19,  and  x.  18,  able  to  bear  out  the  summary  assertion, 
"  Christ  raises  Himself  from  the  dead"  ?  —  Argument  from  the  Mis 
sionary  Sermons  continued,  -r-  Argument  from  St.  Peter's  General 
Epistles.  — "  St.  Jude's  implications  that  Christ  is  God."  —  Rational 
statement  of  the  evidential  purport  of  the  documents  referred  to  in 
this  Chapter 154 

CHAPTER  VII. 

Dissection  of  the  reasoning  by  which  Mr.  Liddon  endeavors  to  show  that 
"  Christ's  Deity  is  bound  up  with  St.  Paul's  whole  mind,"  and  is 
implicitly  taught  throughout  his  Epistles.  —  In  reality  the  Bampton 
Lecturer  refuses  to  take  the  point  of  view  which  St.  Paul's  writings, 
and  other  New  Testament  Scriptures,  incessantly  present.  —  Doctrine 
of  the  Real  Presence  in  the  Holy  Eucharist.  —  Mistaken  deductions 
from  the  Epistles  to  the  Ephesians  and  Colossians. —  Some  additional 
imaginary  implications  of  a  Christ  Divine  in  the  sense  maintained 
by  the  Lectures.  —  Adverse  testimony  of  St.  Paul  exhibited,  and  an 
appeal  made  from  the  ground  of  that  testimony  to  the  honesty,  in 
tellectual  conscientiousness,  and  common  sense  of  Orthodox  Protest 
ants.  —  Catholic  Churchmen  not  liable  to  this  appeal  ....  184 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

The  title  Son  as  expressive  of  relationship  to  God.  —  Supposed  indications 
in  the  Old  Testament  of  a  Divine  Sonship  internal  to  the  Being  of 


CONTENTS. 

God.  —  Synoptists'  use  of  the  title  Son  of  God.  —  Mr.  Liddon's 
attempt  to  show  that  the  Son  is  identical  with  the  Logos  or  Word,  and 
that  the  two  descriptions  complete  and  guard  each  other.  —  The 
expanded  title,  Only-begotten  Son.  —  Weakness  of  Mr.  Liddon's  posi 
tion  metaphysically.  —  His  view  of  the  bearing  of  the  miracles  Tipon 
the  question  of  Christ's  Person.  —  His  deductions  from  the  Self-as 
sertion  exhibited  in  the  first  or  Ethical  stage  of  our  Lord's  teaching. 
—  Difficulties  connected  with  our  Lord's  exposure  to  temptation, 
&c.  —  Mr.  Liddon's  arbitrary,  evasive  treatment  of  a  troublesome 
saying  reported  by  two  Evangelists.  —  Inferences  drawn  from  the 
authoritativeness  of  Christ's  teaching. — Did  He  ratify  the  Penta 
teuch  as  a  whole  ?  *  .  .  222 


CHAPTER   IX. 

Mr.  Liddon's  view  of  the  second  stage  of  our  Lord's  public  teaching 
depends  almost  entirely  on  materials  peculiar  to  the  Fourth  Gospel. 
—  These  materials  discussed  in  detail,  and  shown  neither  to  warrant 
Mr.  Liddon's  deductions,  nor  to  contain  the  presumed  dogmatic 
revelations  of  Christ's  Co-equality  and  Essential  Oneness  with  the 
Father.  —  No  consciousness  of  Eternal  Being  is  unveiled  in  John  viii. 
58,  and  there  is  no  justification  for  connecting  that  text  with  Exodus 
iii.  14  .  247 


CHAPTER  X. 

Supposed  Evidence  that  the  Sanhedrim  condemned  Christ  for  claiming 
to  be  God.  —  The  Title  Son  of  God  never,  in  Jewish  estimation,  equiv 
alent  to  God,  or  more  than  a  Messianic  designation.  —  Force  of  the 
Exclamation  attributed  to  the  Apostle  Thomas  when  he  was  con 
vinced  of  Christ's  Eesurrection.  —  The  Argument  from  certain  say 
ings  in  the  Synoptical  Gospels  assumed  to  be  closely  similar  to 
sayings  found  in  the  "  Gospel  according  to  John." —  Baseless,  repre 
hensible,  and  irreverent  character  of  the  Dilemma,  "  If  Jesus  Christ 
is  not  God,  He  is  not  morally  good." —  Language  ascribed  to  Christ 
Himself  is,  plainly  and  often,  not  rationally  reconcilable  with  the 
Dogma  of  His  Godhead 291 


CHAPTER  XI. 

Examination  of  the  Scripture  testimony  adduced  in  support  of  the  prop 
osition,   "from  the   earliest  age  of  Christianity,  Jesus   Christ  has 


CONTENTS.  Xi 

been  adored  as  God."  —  The  terms  which  precisely  and  definitely 
describe  the  worship  and  service  due  to  the  Supreme  Being  are 
never  connected  with  the  Name  of  Christ.  —  Detailed  investigation 
of  the  feeble  and  forced  pretexts  on  which  Mr.  Liddon  relies.  — 
Meaning  of  the  expressions,  to  call  upon  the  Lord,  and  upon  the  Name  of 
the  Lord.  —  Dying  petitions  of  St.  Stephen.  —  Words  of  frequent  use, 
and  specific,  restricted  application,  denoting  prayers  and  vows  to  the 
Almighty,  are  never  used  of  petitions  addressed  to  Christ. —  The 
prayer  at  the  election  of  the  Apostle  Matthias  was  offered  to  our 
God  and  Father,  not  to  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  —  Argument  from  the 
prayer  of  the  disciple  Ananias,  and  from  the  first  prayers  of  St.  Paul, 
examined.  —  Supposed  recognition,  in  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  of  prayer 
to  Jesus  Christ,  including  the  Apostle's  entreaty  to  be  freed  from 
"  the  thorn  in  the  flesh."  —  Strained  and  erroneous  constructions  of 
passages  in  St.  John's  First  Epistle,  and  in  the  Apocalypse.  —  Brief 
summary  of  the  evidence  that  Christ  was  not  worshipped  as  God.  — 
A  glance  at  some  arguments  from  the  earlier  Fathers.  — Frequency  of 
devotional  addresses  to  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  the  Anglican  Book 
of  Common  Prayer.  —  Remarks  on  the  action  of  the  Clergy,  and  on 
the  use  of  Family  Prayers,  and  Hymns,  wherein  Jesus  Christ  is 
studiedly  equalized  with  the  Father,  in  the  language  of  supplica 
tion  and  praise 312 

CHAPTER  XII. 

Texts  which  imply"  or  assert  Limitation  of  Knowledge  in  Christ.  — 
There  is  nothing  to  prompt  or  justify  Mr.  Liddon's  forced  explana 
tions.  —  Asserted  illuminative  power  of  the  dogma  of  Christ's  Deity, 
in  relation  to  the  Atonement.  —  Examination  of  an  attempt  to  meet 
the  objection  that  the  dogma  detracts  from  the  value  of  Christ's  Life 
as  an  ethical  model  for  Mankind.  —  The  dogma  cannot  be  shown  to 
be  morally  fruitful  in  giving  intensity  to  Christian  virtues,  and  is  not 
calculated  to  promote  the  devotion  of  the  heart  to  God  .  .  .  364 


CHAPTER   XIII. 

The  doctrine  defended  by  Mr.  Liddon  is,  wholly  and  necessarily,  outside 
the  sphere  of  reason.  —  Even  the  explicit  statements  of  the  Creeds 
cannot  be  rationally  harmonized,  and  are  fitted  for  a  blindly  confiding, 
rather  than  a  reflective  and  intelligent  reception.  —  Utter  insuffi 
ciency  of  the  supposed  Scriptural  testimony  for  Christ's  Godhead ; 
and  recapitulation  of  the  adverse  testimony.  —  Mistaken  impres 
sions  kept  up  by  false  statements  in  Commentaries,  Sermons,  &c.  — 


Xli  CONTENTS. 

The  Church's  teaching  cannot  be  fairly  appropriated  without  an 
acknowledgment  of  the  Church's  paramount  authority.  —  This  fact 
appears  to  have  been  at  times  forgotten  even  by  great  Fathers 
in  the  Church.  —  Necessity  for  an  explicitly  speaking  Supreme 
Tribunal.  —  The  inevitable  outcome  of  Protestant  principle.  —  Con 
clusion  .  .  386 


SUPPLEMENTARY  NOTE 411 

INDEXES. 

Texts  specially  referred  to 421 

Quotations,  and  some  principal  topics 425 


AN     EXAMINATION 


,OF 


LIDDON'S   BAMPTON   LECTURES, 


CHAPTER    I. 

INTRODUCTORY. 

The  fault  of  Mr.  Liddon's  position,  and  the  point  of  view  from  which 
alone  this  Examination  of  his  Lectures  is  pursued.  —  The  superiority 
of  the  Catholic  as  compared  with  the  Protestant  basis  for  the  main 
tenance  of  Orthodoxy.  —  Progress  of  Anglican  opinion  regarding  the 
Bible's  insufficiency.  —  Difficulty,  alarm,  and  mischief  engendered 
by  the  attempt  to  ally  Protestant  principle  with  Orthodox  faith.  — 
The  doctrine  Mr.  Liddon  undertakes  to  defend,  a  crucial  test  of  the 
worth  of  this  attempted  alliance. — Defective  Education  in  relation 
to  the  doctrine,  of  both  the  Anglican  Clergy  and  Orthodox  Non- 
conforming  Ministers. —  Some  plausible  evasions,  £c.,  which  are 
made  to  fill  the  place  of  arguments,  noticed.  —  Premature  assertions 
of  the  spiritual  inefficiency  of  Christian  Theism  as  compared  with 
Protestant  Orthodoxy.  —  The  obligation  of  the  clergy  of  the  Estab 
lished  Church  to  Faith  in  Christ's  Godhead,  impaired  by  the  Church's 
acceptance  of  conflicting  fundamental  principles.  —  Excessive  impo 
sition  of  dogmatic  propositions  has  resulted  in  sanctioned  laxity  of 
assent.  —  The  Anglican  Via  Media  stated  and  criticised.  — Appeal  to 
Orthodox  Protestants,  from  the  ground  of  fairness,  facts,  and  policy. — 
Some  further  remarks  on  characteristics  of  Mr.  Liddon's  Lectures, 
and  on  the  aim,  occasion,  and  method  of  this  Examination. 

AXY  true  doctrine  would  be  imperilled  if  defended  from  ill- 
selected  and  untenable  ground.  Mr.  Liddon,  with  anxiously 
good  intent,  has  done  the  dogma  he  maintains  the  disservice 
of  exposing  its  weaker  side,  and  presenting  it  on  a  basis 
which,  in  fact  and  logic,  is  utterly  unsound.  No  transient 
popularity,  and  no  confirmation  of  disquieted  but  credulous 

1 


2  THE   GROUND   TAKEN   BY   MR.    LIDDON. 

waverers,  can  ultimately  compensate  for  the  damage  lie  may 
thus  inflict.  He  denies  that  the  tenet  of  Christ's  veritable 
Godhead  was,  in  the  natural  sense  of  the  word,  a  develop 
ment.  He  will  not  even  concede,  it  was  "related  to  the  teach 
ing  of  the  Apostles  as  an  oak  is  related  to  an  acorn."  He 
pronounces  its  real  relation  to  their  teaching  to  have  been 
"that  of  an  exact  and  equivalent  translation  of  the  language 
of  one  intellectual  period  into  the  language  of  another.  As 
a  matter  of  fact  the  Nicene  Fathers  only  affirmed,  in  the 
philosophical  language  of  the  fourth  century,  what  our  Lord 
and  the  Apostles  had  taught  in  the  popular  dialects  of  the 
first.  If,  then,  the  Nicene  Council  developed,  it  was  a  de 
velopment  by  explanation.  It  was  a  development  which 
placed  the  intrinsically  unchangeable  dogma,  committed  to 
the  guardianship  of  the  Church,  in  its  true  relation  to  the 
new  intellectual  world  that  had  grown  up  around  Christians 
in  the  fourth  century."  (Pp.  428,  429.) 

Now,  these  assertions  unequivocally  embody  the  proposi 
tion —  the  Divinity  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  taught  by  the  Church, 
is  the  probable,  rational,  and  fairly  provable  sense  of  Holy 
Scripture.  They  exclude  the  ideas  of  progress,  growth,  and 
revelation,  in  the  consciousness  of  the  Church,  and  they 
refuse  to  recognize  the  Church's  possession  of  unwritten 
Apostolic  traditions  which  either  supplemented  the  incom 
pleteness,  cleared  the  ambiguities,  or  shed  necessary  light  on 
the  concealments,  of  the  written  Word.  However  far  Mr. 
Liddon's  phraseology  may  at  times  diverge  from  that  of 
ordinary  orthodox  Protestants,  he  here  proceeds  upon  dis 
tinctively  Protestant  principle,  and  proffers  his  dogma  to  be 
tested  by  the  Bible  thoroughly  investigated  and  reasonably 
understood.  To  prove  his  confidence  justified,  and  his  con 
clusions  sustained,  by  the  Bible,  is  the  one  great  end  of  his 
carefully  compiled,  and,  from  his  own  side  virtually  exhaus 
tive,  pleadings.  If  he  had  not  thus  chosen  to  stand  upon 
indefensible  ground,  I  should  not  have  ventured  to  criticise 
his  Lectures.  Against  the  evidence  for  the  doctrine  of  our 
Lord's  Deity  regarded  as  a  revelation  through  the  Church, 


PRELIMINARY    ASSUMPTIONS.  3 

or,  as  resting  on  ecclesiastical  authority,  I  have  said  nothing. 
The  Christian  Church  is  as  grand  a  fact  in  the  world's  his 
tory  as  is  the  Bible,  and,  with  reference  to  the  doctrine  under 
consideration,  the  mind  of  the  Church  Universal  has  long 
displayed  a  perspicuity,  explicitness,  and  uniformity  of  ex 
pression,  of  which  the  Bible  is  conspicuously  destitute. 

If  Orthodoxy  is  to  be  retained,  some  comprehensive  pre 
liminary  assumption  must  be  made,  and  the  assumption  that 
the  Church  is  the  divinely  appointed  organ  and  vehicle  of 
Christian  revealment,  the  Bible  being  a  subordinate  factor  in 
the  Church's  hands,  seems  to  me  incomparably  more  simple, 
expedient,  and  valid,  than  the  assumption  that  the  Bible  is 
the  one  inspired  and  sufficient  repertory  of  the  dogmatic  faith 
proclaimed  by  the  later  two  of  the  three  great  Creeds.  Each 
assumption  has  its  own  special  difficulties,  but  the  former  is 
not  like  the  latter,  self-refuting,  and  rife  with  decomposing 
elements.  If  it  should  be  urged,  an  inspired  Book  does  not 
address  the  rational  intelligence,  and  is  not  to  be  rationally 
interpreted  —  the  Church  is  in  effect  brought  back  under  the 
character  of  interpreter,  with  an  authority  hampered  and 
obstructed  in  administration,  but  not  really  limited  and  con 
trolled.  Granting,  for  argument's  sake,  that  inspired  and 
authoritative  Scriptures  can  be  ascertained  and  assured  with 
out  the  Church's  aid,  still,  the  choice  of  Orthodoxy  must  lie 
between  reasonable  interpretations  which  challenge  scrutiny, 
and  decrees  which  demand  assent ;  in  other  words,  between 
the  findings  of  free  individual  judgment  and  the  ordinances 
of  the  organized  body;  or,  putting  the  antithesis  in  its  most 
condensed  shape,  between  Reason  and  the  Church. 

Into  the  question  of  the  Church's  title  to  authority,  I  have 
in  no  degree  entered,  and  therefore  should  not  have  the  right, 
if  I  had  the  desire,  to  impugn  any  Article  of  the  Church's 
Creeds.  My  examination  of  Mr.  Liddon's  representations  is 
conducted  entirely  upon  the  hypothesis,  that  Protestant  prin 
ciple  in  relation  to  the  sufficiency  and  sole  supremacy  of 
Scripture  is  true  ;  and  while  confining  myself  to  this  hypothe 
sis,  I  have  been  unable  to  escape  the  conclusion,  that  the 


4  IMPORTANCE    OF    THE    QUESTION. 

dogma  Mr.  Liddon  advocates  is  false.  The  Catholic  principle 
which  acknowledges,  within  the  human  exterior  of  ecclesiasti 
cal  organization,  the  secret  infallible  guidance  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  as  an  abiding  source  and  guarantee  of  dogma,  is  dis 
allowed  by  Mr.  Liddon,  not  controverted  by  me.  Though 
Protestants  may  be  demonstrably  unable. to  hold,  without 
inconsistency,  the  doctrine  of  our  Lord's  Divinity,  yet,  if 
Catholic  principle  is  firm  and  sound,  the  doctrine  has  a  sure 
foundation.  The  subject-matter  about  which  the  following 
chapters  are  employed  is  not,  therefore,  the  truth  or  falsehood 
of  a  doctrine,  but  the  security  or  insecurity  of  a  foundation 
on  which  a  minority  of  Christians  have  attempted  to  erect 
that  doctrine. 

In  debating  the  point  which  Mr.  Liddon's  method  raises,  we 
go  to  the  very  heart  of  modern  theological  controversy.  ~No 
intelligent  observer  can  have  failed  to  notice  how,  ever  since 
the  great  Tractarian  revival  of  Church  sentiments,  a  convic 
tion  of  the  Bible's  inadequacy,  as  the  rule  and  fountain  of 
orthodox  faith,  has  been  spreading  and  deepening  among  the 
more  thoughtful  of  the  Anglican  clergy.  With  more  or  less 
thoroughness  and  consistency,  nearly  every  Anglican  writer 
of  note  has  sought  to  throw  upon  Church  authority  some 
portion  of  the  vast  burden  which  pure  Prostestantism  throws 
upon  the  Canonical  Scriptures.  Indeed,  we  may  safely  affirm 
that,  among  the  clergy  of  the  Established  Church,  only  the 
shrunken  and  intellectually  bankrupt  party,  called  Evangeli 
cal,  now  tries  to  combine  Orthodoxy  with  strictly  Protestant 
views  of  the  nature  and  office  of  Scripture.  Anglicans  of 
every  shade  of  Churchmanship,  from  Moderate  to  High,  per 
ceive  Orthodoxy  to  demand  something  more  than  the  Bible 
for  its  groundwork.  *  This  perception  is  the  mainspring  and 
core  of  the  High  Churchmanship,  which  some  unreflecting 

*  I  had  marked  for  quotation,  in  illustration  of  this  fact,  passages  from 
the  fifth  of  Dr.  Jelf's  Bampton  Lectures  for  the  /year  1844;  from  Dean 
Goulbourn's  "  Farewell  Counsels  of  a  Pastor  to  his  Flock"  (Sermon 
VI.)  ;  and  from  the  calmly  effective  volume,  entitled,  "  The  Bible  and  its 
Interpreters,"  by  Dr.  Irons,  recently  vicar  of  Holy  Trinity,  Brompton. 


"     PERCEPTION    OF    THE    BIBLE'S    INADEQUACY.  5 

Protestants,  who  are  loud-mouthed  for  orthodox  beliefs,  so 
incessantly  misconceive  and  vilify. 

An  apprehension  of  the  Bible's  inadequacy  is  often  incon 
gruously  qualified  by  a  professed  retention  of  the  Bible  as  a 
standard  of  doctrine  and  court  of  appeal ;  but  inquiry  easily 
elicits  that  the  retention  is  peculiarly  conditioned.  The  ca 
nonical  standard  must  be  applied,  and  the  appeal  in  the  court 
of  Scripture  must  be  prosecuted,  by  those  who  thoroughly 
believe  the  Church's  dogmas  —  by  those  who  bring  to  the 
handling  of  Scripture  ecclesiastical  enlightenment,  assured 
information,  and  faith  already  systematized.  To  collect  from 
the  pages  of  the  Bible  the  distinctive  features  of  Orthodoxy, 
decided  mental  bias  and  prepossession  are  needed.  The  con 
clusion  to  be  reached  must  be  seen,  and  grasped,  and  cher 
ished,  before  the  investigation  is  begun.  The  Bible  is  explored 
for  illustrations  of  the  explorer's  faith,  or  to  do  the  laudable 
service  of  ingeniously  reconciling  discrepancies  between  Bibli 
cal  statements  and  the  explorer's  previously  accepted  opinions. 
It  is  only  under  conditions  which  make  the  invocation  practi 
cally  insincere,  and  the  response  settled  beforehand,  that  the 
Bible  is  invoked  on  the  dogmas  of  the  Creeds  respecting  the 
Divine  Nature.  The  felt,  though  not  always  confessed,  neces 
sity  for  such  conditions  is  the  root  of  the  difficulties  which 
thwart  every  plan  of  general  elementary  religious  education. 
Xo  sensible  person  denies  the  existence  of  great  and  most 
essential  "features  in  religion,  about  which  all  believers  in  a 
personal  God  and  Father,  and  a  life  beyond  the  grave,  are 
agreed.  The  duties  of  devotional  and  moral  service,  obvi- 

But  it  seemed  needless  to  support  a  statement  which  no  moderately  well- 
read  man  will  be  inclined  to  deny. 

The  delicate  sensitiveness  of  the  perception  to  which  I  refer  has  been 
lately  manifested  in  the  intrepid  protests  of  some  Churchmen,  and  the 
deep  murmurs  of  many  against  the  mingling  of  a  few  heretical  scholars 
among  the  selected  Revisers  of  the  English  Version.  Learning  and  sin 
cerity,  without  orthodox  opinions,  do  not  qualify  a  man  to  take  part  in 
translating  the  Church's  Book.  Minds  not  taught  by  an  external  author 
ity  the  true  sense  of  the  Sacred  Volume  may  be  expected  to  misunderstand, 
with  pertinacious  blindness,  some  of  its  most  momentous  dogmatic  words. 


b      PROTESTANT  CONCEPTION  OF  INTERPRETATION. 

ously  comprised  in  the  two  great  commandments  —  to  love 
God,  and  to  love  our  neighbor;  the  efficacy  of  prayer  for 
spiritual  blessings ;  the  sense  of  sin  ;  the  expectation  of  enter 
ing  in  the  next  life  upon  a  portion  suited  to  the  character  we 
have  formed  in  this ;  the  broad  belief  that  Jesus  Christ  is  to 
us  a  Messenger,  Instructor,  Example,  and  Master,  sent  and 
inspired  by  God ;  surely,  these  things  might  be  deduced  from, 
and  enforced  by,  the  Sacred  Writings  —  would  cover  all  the 
morals  and  religion  necessary  for  social  purposes,  and  would 
lay  an  ample  and  a  solid  foundation  for  the  reception  in  after 
years  of  any  dogma  not  glaringly  devoid  of  evidence  and 
consonance  with  the  religious  sentiments. 

But  men  who  identify  Christianity  with  the  definitions  of 
the  Nlcene  and  Athanasian  symbols  are  governed  by  a  sus 
picion,  tantamount  to  persuasion,  that  nothing  short  of  train 
ing  in  explicit  dogmatic  faith  from  infant  years  will  suffice  to 
insure  orthodox  conviction.  They  perceive  in  the  saying  of 
Jesus  concerning  little  children  —  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  —  a  pointed  reference  to  the  receptiveness,  and  easy 
flexibility  with  which  a  child's  mind  learns  to  wear  and  revere 
the  bandages  of  inexplicable  doctrinal  statements.  By  early 
habit,  dint  of  repetition,  and  close  pinioning  of  Avhat  is  weak, 
to  what  is  cogent  and  reasonable,  the  end  must  be  achieved, 
towards  which  developed  intellect  and  devout  feeling  are 
worse  than  unequal  means.  The  more  minds  not  ecclesiasti 
cally  indoctrinated  in  childhood  believed  in  One  God  and 
Father  —  the  more  they  gave  earnest  heed  to  spiritual  things, 
and  appreciated  practical  Christian  virtues,  the  less  likely 
would  they  be  to  admit  the  Church's  conception  of  a  Trinity, 
and  its  dogmatic  pendants.  Their  spiritual  wants  would  be 
satisfied  without  a  merely  verbal  analysis  of  the  One  God 
into  three  Persons,  or  a  real  division  of  the  One  Divine 
Nature  into  three  Gods ;  and  their  reason,  freely  searching 
Scripture,  would  be  unable,  by  any  defensible  mode  of  inter 
pretation,  to  extract  from  "  the  popular  dialect  employed  by 
our  Lord  and  His  Apostles  the  intrinsically  unchangeable 
dogma  which  the  Church  has  affirmed  in  the  philosophical 


PRESENT   STATE    OF    PROTESTANT    FEELING.  7 

language  of  the  fourth  and  subsequent  centuries."  Unsuc- 
cored  by  the  bent  of  early  and  heavily  impressed  bias,  the 
mature  intelligence  of  a  cultivated  mind  would  be  peculiarly 
unlikely  to  attain  the  proportions  of  ecclesiastical  orthodoxy, 
or  to  comprehend  how  person  can  mean  any  thing  but  a  com 
plete  individual  Being,  and  three  any  thing  but  one  thrice 
counted. 

The  truly  Protestant  view  of  scriptural  interpretation, 
vividly  stated  in  Professor  Jowett's  celebrated  Essay,  is  very 
objectionable  in  the  eyes  of  many  who  profess  and  call  them 
selves  Protestants. 

"  The  office  of  the  interpreter  is  not  to  add  another  inter 
pretation,  but  to  recover  the  original  one ;  the  meaning,  that 
is,  of  the  words  as  they  struck  on  the  ears  or  flashed  before 
the  eyes  of  those  who  first  heard  and  read  them.  He  has  to 
transfer  himself  to  another  age ;  to  imagine  that  he  is  a  disci 
ple  of  Christ  or  Paul ;  to  disengage  himself  from  all  that 
follows.  The  history  of  Christendom  is  nothing  to  him ;  but 
only  the  scene  at  Galilee  or  Jerusalem,  the  handful  of  believ 
ers  who  gathered  themselves  together  at  Ephesus,  or  Corinth, 
or  Rome.  His  eye  is  fixed  on  the  form  of  one  like  the  Sou 
of  Man,  or  of  the  Prophet  who  was  girded  with  a  garment 
of  camel's  hair,  or  of  the  Apostle  who  had  a  thorn  in  the 
flesh.  The  greatness  of  the  Roman  Empire  is  nothing  to 
him;  it  is  an  inner  not  an  outer  world  that  he  is  striving 
to  restore.  All  the  after- thoughts  of  theology  are  nothing  to 
him ;  they  are  not  the  true  lights  which  light  him  in  difficult 
places.  His  concern  is  with  a  book  in  which,  as  in  other 
ancient  writings,  are  some  things  of  which  we  are  ignorant ; 
which  defect  of  our  knowledge  cannot,  however,  be  supplied 
by  the  conjectures  of  Fathers  or  divines.  The  simple  words 
of  that  book  he  tries  to  preserve  absolutely  pure  from  the 
refinements  or  distinctions  of  later  times. 

"  The  growth  of  ideas  in  the  interval  which  separated  the 
first  century  from  the  fourth  or  sixth  makes  it  impossible  to 
apply  the  language  of  the  one  to  the  explanation  of  the  other. 
Between  Scripture  and  the  Nicene  or  Athanasian  Creed,  a 


PRESENT  STATE  OF  PROTESTANT  FEELING. 

world  of  the  understanding  comes  in  —  that  world  of  abstrac 
tions  and  second  notions ;  and  mankind  are  no  longer  at  the 
same  point  as  when  the  whole  of  Christianity  was  contained 
in  the  words,  '  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou 
mayest  be  saved,'  when  the  Gospel  centred  in  the  attach 
ment  to  a  living  or  recently  departed  friend  and  Lord." 

Although,  among  nominal  Protestants,  there  are  increasing 
numbers  who  discern  the  moral  and  spiritual  sovereignty  of 
the  Church,  and  see  in  her  the  depository,  guardian,  and  liv 
ing  channel  of  truth  revealed  by  God  to  man,  yet  a  frank 
unconditional  confession  of  what  they  discern  is  compara 
tively  rare,  and  from  the  confession  when  made  an  orthodox 
multitude  vigorously  dissents.  The  effect  of  this  is,  as  might 
be  surmised,  very  palpable,  and  full  of  injury  to  religion. 
Dependence  upon  the  better  foundation  is  not  avowed,  and 
discussion  conducted  upon  the  other  foundation  is  avoided, 
in  virtue  of  a  logical  insight  truer  and  deeper  than  loudly 
repeated  professions. 

The  subject  selected  by  Mr.  Liddon  supplies  the  crucial  test 
of  Protestant  principle  in  its  relation  to  the  Church's  Creeds. 
If  that  principle  is,  in  its  results,  compatible  with  the  ecclesi 
astically  prescribed  faith  of  the  fourth  and  more  immediately 
succeeding  centuries,  on  the  topic  of  Christ's  nature  and  attri 
butes,  then  the  future  of  orthodox  Protestantism  may  be 
anticipated  without  misgivings ;  but  if  the  principle  is  not 
commensurate  with  the  Church's  Creeds,  orthodox  Protest 
antism  is  drifting  to  complete  and  speedy  wreck.  Not  only 
the  clergy,  and  a  growing  section  of  the  better  educated  laity, 
in  the  Established  Church,  but  the  ministers  of  orthodox. 
Nonconforming  communities  also,  are  beginning  in  various 
degrees  to  see  or  scent  the  danger.  At  present,  however, 
there  is  little  visible  movement  outside  the  Anglican  body ; 
sensibility  is  roused,  but  intellect  is  repressed  and  passive. 
Orthodox  men  are  too  often  ready  to  denounce  and  stigmatize 
those  who  unveil  the  obnoxious  facts  that  must  sooner  or 
later  be  faced.  They  chafe  at  opposition,  recoil  from  inquiry, 
and  try  in  practice  to  make  puny  and  contemptible  individual 


DEFECTS    OF    CLERICAL   EDUCATION.  9 

dicta  fill  the  place  of  the  vast  and  venerable  dogmatic  au 
thority  which  Protestant  theory  rejects.  With  respect  to 
Christ's  Deity,  they  seem  to  be  wholly  bereft  of  the  tranquil 
reliance  on  truth's  power  and  eventual  triumph,  which  ought 
to  flow  from  inward  assurance  that  the  doctrine  is  from 
Heaven,  and  has  a  verifiable,  trustworthy  foundation  in  the 
written  Word  of  God.  This  sensitive  and  distrustful  frame 
of  mind  can  be  traced  in  the  exaggeration,  and  excited  obliq 
uity  of  vision,  with  which  they  meet  the  supposition  that 
the  Uncreated,  Imperishable  Essence  comprises  only  a  single 
Personality.  Some  of  them  would  appear  to  be  even  inca 
pable  of  conceiving  faith  in  God,  unless  such  faith  embraces 
the  notion  of  a  Triad  of  coequal  Beings  within  the  Divine 
Nature,  to  each  of  Whom  all  the  attributes  of  Deity  pertain. 
The  denial  of  Christ's  Deity  is,  in  their  view,  equivalent  to 
Atheism. 

Now,  if  this  mental  attitude  is  not  the  fruit  of  barely  sup 
pressed  involuntary  scepticism,  it  is  the  fruit  of  gross  igno 
rance.  The  ingrained  prejudgrnents  of  early  education,  and 
the  defects  of  ministerial  training,  suggest  that,  in  the  greater 
number  of  instances,  ignorance  is  the  malady  under  which 
the  Protestant  clergy  are  laboring.  Their  theory  enjoins 
the  exercise  of  individual  reason  and  conscience,  but  their 
habitual  practice  neglects  the  means  by  which  alone  rational 
beings  can  test  the  worth,  and,  if  need  be,  correct  the  lean 
ings,  of  educational  bias.  They  have,  and  rather  pride  them 
selves  on  having,  as  regards  the  central  topic  of  controversy, 
only  a  knowledge  which  is  in  effect  the  worst  kind  of  igno 
rance —  knowledge  of  one  side.  The  majority  of  the  men 
who  now  enter  the  ranks  of  the  Anglican  priesthood  study 
nothing  in  theology,  beyond  Butler's  Analogy,  Paley's  Evi 
dences,  the  fifth  Book  of  Hooker,  and  standard  expositions 
of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  and  the  Apostles'  Creed.  The 
Old  and  New  Testaments  are,  of  course,  read  with  the  notes 
of  approved  commentators,  and  with  a  view  to  mastering  the 
arts  of  intrusion  and  inference,  the  latest  editings  of  the  leg 
acy  of  elaborately  contrived  expository  methods  by  which 


10  DEFECTS   OF    CLERICAL   EDUCATION. 

the  junction  between  Holy  Scripture  and  traditional  dogma 
is  effected.  Some  knowledge  of  Church  history,  also,  is  ac 
quired  from  handbooks  of  trusted  and  orthodox  complexion. 
Coming  after  the  deeply  instilled  lessons  of  childhood,  and 
according  with  impressions  interlaced  with  every  form  of 
habitual  devotion,  this  process  has  been,  on  the  whole,  cheer- 
ingly  successful  in  producing  obstinate  adherents,  and  dogged 
defenders,  for  the  foregone  conclusions  from  which  investiga 
tion  has  been  wrarded  off.  Similar  circumstances,  and  a  simi 
lar  process,  would  create  faithful  ministers  of  religions  which 
have  biit  a  small  fraction  of  the  moral  and  spiritual  beauty, 
the  power  and  self-luminous  truth,  which  are  enshrined  in  the 
undogmatic  precepts  of  the  religion  of  Christ.  The  risk  of 
free-thinking  is  provided  against,  and  the  feelings  attuned  to 
repel,  with  fractious  irritation  and  disgust,  the  first  approaches 
of  reasoning  against  predominant  dogma.  In  the  persons  of 
the  ordained  teachers  of  Christianity,  the  traditional  faith  is 
thus  entrenched,  so  far  as  human  means  permit.  Some  avoid- 
less  danger  arises  from  the  presence,  in .  the  educated  and 
more  influential  classes,  of  many  who  have  not  been  moulded 
by  training  after  the  clerical  fashion,  and  their  breadth  of 
view,  added  to  the  diffusion  of  a  freely  inquisitive  and  scepti 
cal  literature,  tends  to  diminish  the  clerical  horror  of  inquiry, 
and  occasionally  so  far  breaks  down  the  barriers  of  pre- 
engaged  feeling,  that  even  stanchly  evangelical  minds  are 
betrayed  into  examination  and  its  results. 

Another,  though  perhaps  lesser,  source  of  jeopardy  is  con 
tained  in  those  secular  portions  of  every  gentleman's  educa 
tion  which  develop  and  exercise  the  rational  faculties,  and 
encourage  the  pursuit  of  truth  for  its  own  sake.  But  this 
danger  has  been  in  a  measure  obviated  by  recruiting  the 
clerical  ranks  from  Theological  Colleges,  instead  of  from  the 
Universities ;  arid,  if  Protestantism  is  to  continue  its  unnat 
ural  alliance  with  the  Church's  tenets,  the  expediency  of 
enlarging  and  multiplying  such  Colleges,  and  stocking  them 
with  students  whose  capacities  for  belief  have  been  as  little 
as  possible  affected  by  a  liberal  culture,  becomes  matter  for 


DEFECTS   OF    CLERICAL   EDUCATION.  11 

serious  consideration.  The  strengthening  and  enlightenment 
of  the  intellectual  powers  by  the  methods  of  secular  educa 
tion  have  a  marked  tendency  to  indispose  the  mind  for  the 
compliant  faith,  which  can  cement  into  one  composite  rule  a 
supremely  authoritative  book  addressing  reason  and  con 
science,  and  a  traditional  interpretation  of  that  bpok,  setting 
reason  at  defiance. 

EA^en  among  the  more  scholarly  and  better  informed  of  the 
Anglican  clergy,  there  are  very  few  who  have  taken  the  one 
easy,  and  absolutely  needful,  step  towards  an  intelligent, 
honest,  and  steadfast  belief  in  Christ's  Deity.  Not  one  in  a 
hundred  has  tested  and  consolidated  his  hereditary  faith  by 
a  close  study  o£  the  arguments  which  those  who  differ  urge 
against  it.  What  the  majority  know  of  the  adversary's  case 
has  been  gleaned  from  controversial  teachers  on  their  own 
side*  The  treatises  of  Bishops  Bull,  Waterland,  Jackson, 
and  Archbishop  Magee,  added  to  books  already  mentioned, 
are  presumed  to  furnish  the  mind  perfectly,  whereas,  in 
reality,  when  taken  alone,  they  confirm  preconceptions  with 
out  enlarging  knowledge.  No  man  can  arrive  at  a  stable 
and  enlightened  conviction  on  a  debated  question,  unless  he 
reads,  reflects  upon,  and  mentally  grapples  with,  the  view 
opposed  to  his  own,  presented  and  enforced  as  an  earnest 
competent  opponent  would  present  and  enforce  it.  When 
our  information  comes  exclusively  through  writers  in  one  camp, 
we  are  very  unlikely,  whether  our  opinions  are  right  or  wrong, 
to  understand  a  contested  point.  Our.  persuasion,  be  it  wrhat 
it  may,  is  not,  in  relation  to  ourselves,  morally  and  intellect 
ually  healthy  and  secure.  And  this  general  maxim  is  espe 
cially  true  in  regard  to  that  notable  doctrine  which  was 

*  The  excellent  Dean  of  Chichester,  whose  historical  work,  "  Lives 
of  the  Archbishops  of  Canterbury,"  is  so  admirable,  appears,  in  his 
Introduction  to  "  The  Church  and  the  Age,"  feelingly  to  deprecate  inves 
tigation  into  inherited  opinions  on  fundamental  dogmas.  What  could 
have  prompted  him  to  expend  his  valuable  time,  and  pleasant  English, 
upon  the  shallow  Essay  entitled,  "  Anglican  Principles  "  ?  "  Soothing 
Syrup  for  Aged  and  Infant  Anglicans,"  would  have  been  a  more  appro 
priate  title. 


12  EVILS    OF   ONE-SIDED   KNOWLEDGE. 

eagerly  fought  over  in  the  fourth  century,  and  has  never, 
since  the  sixteenth  century,  lacked  keen-witted  and  irrepres 
sible  assailants.  Other  doctrines  have  been  assailed  by 
greater  numbers,  and  with  greater  enthusiasm,  but  no  doc 
trine  has  summoned  opponents^so  uniformly  above  average 
in  ability,  cultivation,  and  fearless  appeal  to  the  plain  rational 
sense  of  Scripture.  The  conception  of  the  Personal  Unity, 
as  opposed  to  the  Personal  Plurality,  of  the  Divine  Nature, 
has,  since  the  Reformation,  been  asserted  with  a  force  of  rea 
soning,  and  an  undaunted  reliance  upon  Scripture,  which 
ought  to  compel  the  attention  of  every  theological  student. 
The  subject  is  confessedly  of  no  secondary  moment,  but  of 
the  primest  importance.  The  Unitarian  doctrine  is  no  "  par 
adoxical  speculation  with  which  the  public  mind  may  from 
time  to  time  be  astonished  or  amused,"  but  is  of  a  thoroughly 
fundamental,  crucial  character.  Yet  the  mastery  of  one 
standard  Unitarian  book  is  no  part  of  prescribed  clerical  prep 
aration  in  the  Church  of  England,  and  is  an  exceedingly 
rare  accomplishment  among  her  better-read  divines.  How, 
then,  can  the  truth  be  known,  or  the  dogma  that  Jesus  is 
God,  if  true,  be  effectively  maintained  ? 

And  the  choicer  specimens  of  orthodox  Nonconformist 
ministers  are  in  no  better  plight  than  ourselves.  They  study 
the  pages  of  Pye  Smith,  or  Wardlaw,  or  Moses  Stuart; 
are  familiar  writh  commentators  of  repute  in  their  own  com 
munity,  and,  perchance,  with  Church  of  England  authors ; 
but  not  one  in  a  hundred  reads  Wilson,  or  Yates,  or  Andrews 
Norton.*  Their  students,  like  ours,  are  acquainted  with  the 
most  formidable,  though  not  the  most  demonstrative  of  ad- 

*  These  are  standard  authors  on  the  Unitarian  side.  With  Professor 
Norton's  "  Statement  of  Reasons,"  &c.,  I  am  well  acquainted.  It  is,  as 
might  be  supposed,  very  able  and  suggestive,  but  not,  I  think,  quite 
adapted  for  general  reading.  Wilson's  "  Scripture  Proofs  and  Illustra 
tions  of  Unitarianism,"  I  have  recently  looked  into,  but  not  closely 
examined.  Its  plan  seems  good  and  exhaustive,  and  re-edited  by  a  com 
petent  hand  it  would  leave  little  to  be  desired.  Of  Yates's  "  Vindication 
of  Unitarianism,"  I  know  nothing,  except  that  it  is  very  highly  esteemed  by 
members  of  his  own  communion,  and  has  passed  through  several  editions. 


THE    PLEA    OF   MYSTERIOUSNESS.  13 

versaries,  only  through  the  writings  and  lectures  of  their  own 
controversialists  and  professors ;  in  other  words,  they  are 
not  honestly  and  genuinely  acquainted  with  the  adversary 
at  all. 

The  deficient  and  discreditable  state  of  theological  training, 
among  adherents  to  Protestant  principles,  necessarily  pro 
duces  the  results  unhappily  so  common ;  namely,  a  dread  of 
inquiry  —  a  consciousness  of  insecurity — an  aversion  to 
apply  the  Bible  as  the  sole  and  Divine  Rule  of  Faith  —  a 
prompt  uncharitableness,  and  rising  venom,  whenever  the 
tenet  of  our  Lord's  Deity  is  referred  to  in  any  terms  but 
those  of  vehement  affirmation  and  ostentatious  assent. 
There  is,  manifestly,  some  more  deeply  seated  feeling  than 
mere  dislike  to  disturbing  but  legitimate  polemics ;  there  is 
the  logical  distrust  which  attaches  to  suspected  foundations 
and  insufficient  means  of  defence.  And  when  controversy 
is  ventured  upon,  plausible  evasions,  supercilious  cant,  and 
thinly  disguised  insolence  are  apt  to  take  the  place  of  rea 
soning. 

The  mysteriousness  of  the  great  ecclesiastical  dogma  is 
often  pleaded  on  behalf  of  its  reception  without  inquiry,  but 
the  plea  is  valid  only  in  conjunction  with  the  announcements 
of  a  living,  explicitly  speaking  authority,  and  does  not  touch 
the  question  whether  the  sacred  writers  held  and  inculcated 
the  dogma.  If  Jesus  be  indeed  God,  the  mystery  of  His 
Being  oppresses  and  baffles  the  understanding,  but  is  no 
bar  to  definite  and  distinct  statements  of  the  fact  of  His 
Godhead.  A  mystery  can  be  unambiguously  preached,  and 
clearly  implied,  without  being  explained.  The  point  at 
issue  is,  not  the  intelligibility  of  the  proposition,  "  the  Son 
is  equal  to  the  Father  as  touching  His  Godhead,"  but  the  pres 
ence  in  Scripture  of  the  proposition  itself,  or  of  testimony 
which  warrants  the  proposition.  The-  search  is  not  for  a  solu 
tion  of  the  mystery,  which,  if  real,  may  well  be  insoluble,  but 
for  the  existence  of  the  mystery.  To  arrest  examination  by 
the  cry  of  mysteriousness  is,  therefore,  poor  subterfuge.  But, 
when  this  subterfuge  is  not  permitted,  the  ungracious  cant 


14  THE   PLEA    OP   MYSTERIOUSNESS. 

of  spiritual  self-complacency  too  frequently  crops  up.  Hearty 
acceptance  of  the  dogma  is  said  to  pre-require  a  certain 
moral  condition,  the  absence  of  which  indicates  defect  in  spir- 
itual-mindedness,  humility,  and  love  of  holiness.  In  this 
complacently  ill-bred  suggestion,  however,  two  plain  facts 
are  overlooked :  (1)  That  the  question  is  an  intellectual 
one,  so  far  as  it  pertains  merely  to  the  existence  of  particular 
evidence  ;  (*2)  That,  so  far  as  it  pertains  to  the  formal  con 
ception  of  the  dogma  for  which  evidence  is  presumed  to 
exist,  it  belongs  entirely  to  the  domain  of  the  speculative 
intellect,  and  not  of  the  religious  emotional  sentiments.  A 
want  of  healthful,  moral,  and  religious  interest  —  an  unde 
veloped  or  perverted  spiritual  condition  —  may,  doubtless, 
disincline  men  from  faith  in  the  primary  supersensible  real 
ities  to  which  the  religious  components  of  our  nature  point, 
and  which  reason  does  not  contravene ;  such  as  the  disem 
bodied  life  of  the  soul,  and  the  existence,  perfections,  and 
moral  government  of  an  Omnipotent  Creator,  Who  is  also 
the  Helper  and  Father  of  His  creatures,  and  holds  inter 
course  with  their  spirits.  These  realities,  together  with 
the  grand  lines  of  our  duty  to  God  and  to  our  neighbor,  are 
forms  of  truth  which  cannot  be  rightly  apprehended  without 
moral  earnestness,  but  which  cannot  lose  by  scrutiny,  specu 
lation,  and  experience.  They  have  no  need  to  shun  the 
light,  and  are  commended  and  strengthened  by  reinvestiga- 
tion.  But  the  theory  of  Christ's  Godhead  stands  quite  apart 
from  realities  of  this  class,  and  cannot  be  associated  with 
them  otherwise  than  by  an  arbitrary  and  artificial  junction. 
To  bind  ecclesiastical  dogmas  upon  primary  religious  truths, 
for  the  purpose  of  making  proofs  of  the  latter  bear  the 
weight  of  the  former,  may  be  an  astute,  but  is  not  a  very 
respectable'  device.  Before  theologians,  rendered  irascible 
by  scarcity  of  reasons,  resort  to  impertinent  innuendoes  about 
the  moral  condition  of  their  fellow  Christians,  who,  having 
examined,  cannot  accept  certain  theories,  they  would  do  well 
to  ponder  seriously  how  far  their  own  moral  condition  may 
be  disordered  by  educational  bias,  excited  feeling,  and  neglect 


WORTH    OF   MORAL   PREDISPOSITIONS.  15 

of  single-minded,  pains-taking  search.  Protestant  ministers 
are,  in  virtue  of  their  own  fundamental  maxims,  under  strict 
obligations  of  intellectual  duty  towards  God  and  towards 
their  brethren  ;  when  they  shall  have  fulfilled  these  obliga 
tions,  they  will  be  better  qualified  to  talk  of  other  men's 
"  moral  condition." 

Conceding,  as  we  must,  freely  and  thankfully,  the  existence 
and  claims  to  recognition  of  moral  affections,  predispositions, 
and  sentiments  which  favor,  and  lead  up  to,  the  acceptance  of 
some  constituent  features  in  Christianity,  the  question  meets 
us,  What  are  these  features  ?  are  they  the  dogmatic  defini 
tions,  or  the  more  general  and  deeper  ethical  and  spiritual 
truths  ?  The  most  traditionally  minded  Protestant,  if  he  be 
also  a  man  of  ordinary  truthfulness  and  acumen,  will  not 
contend  that  moral  intuitions  and  spiritual  instincts,  such  as 
(taking  a  much-cited  class  for  example)  conviction  of  sin, 
self-condemnation,  doubt  of  pardon,  point  to  precise  doc 
trines,  but  to  undetailed  though  actual  relations  between 
responsible  creatures  and  their  Creator.  All  real  instincts  of 
our  nature,  whether  spiritual  or  physical,  have  corresponding 
truths  and  objects;  but,  for  the  rightful  apprehension  of  these 
truths  and  objects,  the  inquisitive  and  constructive  exercise 
of  the  intellect  is  needed.  Mere  sentiment  is  a  blind  guide, 
and  our  best  intuitions  can  but  indicate  directions  for  the 
excursions  of  thought.  The  sentiments  belonging  to  an  im 
perfect  and  slowly  unfolding  rational  constitution  must  be 
liable  to  every  degree  of  suppression,  deflection,  and  perver 
sion  ;  and  it  is  an  observed  fact,  that  deformities  and  distor 
tions  are,  to  a  considerable  extent,  capable  of  hereditary 
transmission.  Moral  affections  are  also  exposed  to  the  influ 
ences  of  sympathetic  contagion.  In  connection  with  the 
religious  emotions,  especially,  particular  forms  of  expression 
and  manifestation  strengthen  and  propagate  themselves,  dur 
ing  periods  more  or  less  prolonged,  by  the  mere  infection  of 
existence,  and  in  spite  of  demonstrable  and  even  monstrous 
errors.  Whenever,  therefore,  spiritual  instincts,  moral  senti 
ments,  and  primary  religious  tendencies  are  appealed  to  m 


16  WORTH    OF   MORAL   PREDISPOSITIONS. 

defence  of  concrete  theological  theories,  the  first  inquiry  must 
be,  Have  these  underlying  elements  been  fairly  interpreted, 
or  pervertingly  handled  ? 

The  class  of  feelings  and  intuitions  to  which  I  have,  for 
the  sake  of -illustration,  referred,  reminds  us  of  attempts 
sometimes  made  to  engraft  upon  the  sense  of  guilt  the  ortho 
dox  conception  of  the  Atonement,  — a  conception  which  makes 
the  co-equally  Divine  God  the  Son  take  upon  Him  an  apparel 
of  flesh  and  blood,  in  order  to  satiate  and  satisfy,  by  obe 
dience,  sufferings,  and  death,  the  righteous  judicial  demands 
of  God  the  Father.  But  may  not  every  suggestion  really 
wrapt  up  in  the  sense  of  guilt  be  more  genuinely  met  by 
the  revelation  of  a  Father  who  forgives  freely  the  imploring 
penitent,  and,  through  His  own  quickening  presence  in  the 
soul,  helps  to  generate  and  deepen  the  emotions  of  penitence, 
and  the  hunger  after  righteousness?  The  upbraidings  of 
conscience,  the  alarms  of  remorse,  the  cravings  for  assurances 
of  release,  are  not  the  only  instinctive  witnesses  to  a  Holy  God 
with  which  our  souls  are  furnished,  and  are  witnesses  singu 
larly  susceptible  of  developments,  partial,  exaggerated,  twisted, 
and  false.  Spiritual  instincts  as  deep  and  real,  but  displaying 
other  aspects,  are  not  to  be  excluded  ;  they  are,  indeed,  soft 
ening,  consolatory,  and  corrective  of  the  hard  despair  en 
gendered  by  self-accusing  remorse.  Hope,  trust,  and  love 
witness  for  a  tender  and  helpful  God,  Who  is  not  extreme  to 
mark  what  is  done  amiss ;  and  there  is,  in  the  human  heart, 
the  capacity,  encouraged  and  sustained  by  the  intellect,  for  a 
strong  faith  that  our  heavenly  Father  has  towards  us  infinite 
stores  of  the  forbearance  and  loving-kindness  which  He 
commands  and  enables  us  to  cultivate  towards  each  other. 

The  appeal  to  native  moral  predispositions,  and  primary 
spiritual  instincts,  is  quite  legitimately  made  when  we  are 
examining  the  foundations  of  theological  doctrine ;  but  let  it 
be  made  equitably,  not  in  a  partisan  spirit,  and  with  a  view 
to  create  that  muddled  mental  atmosphere  which  favors  the 
reception  of  orthodox  mysteries,  and  the  protracted  substi 
tution  of  current  phrases  in  place  of  intelligible  ideas.  The 


RESPONSE   TO    DEVOTIONAL   FEELINGS.  17 

moral  condition  of  a  man  as  regards  his  religious  belief  is 
not  blameworthy,  unless  (1)  he  wilfully  rejects  a  suffi 
ciently  well-authenticated  external  revelation,  or,  while  pro 
fessing  to  accept  it,  refuses  to  search  out  and  be  guided  by 
its  meaning ;  or  unless  (2)  he  captiously  objects  to  tenets 
which  are  "  commended  to  the  mind  as  true  in  themselves, 
and  are  in  harmony  with  other  truths,  and  with  those  gen 
eral  principles  of  belief  which  belong  to  the  constitution  of 
our  rational  nature."  The  moral  condition  of  a  Protestant 
who  is  unable  to  collect  from  the  Bible  satisfactory  proofs  of 
Christ's  Godhead  is  not,  therefore,  blameworthy. 

The  "  moral  condition  of  the  recipient "  argument  has 
some  collateral  accessories  slightly  less  offensive  than  itself. 
One  of  these  is,  that  our  own  better  nature  responds  to  the 
orthodox  doctrine  of  Christ's  Person.  If  this  vague  state 
ment  is  not  an  insinuation  aimed  against  the  better  nature  of 
opponents,  no  more  is  really  meant  than  that  the  doctrine, 
when  its  verbal  expression  hns  been  carefully  adjusted,  may 
be  restrained  from  collision  with  truths  which  correspond  to 
instinctive  religious  susceptibilities  and  cravings.  Response 
to  our  devotional  nature  is  a  plea  which  Protestants  should 
handle  with  extreme  caution.  Catholics  of  the  Roman  Com 
munion  can  show  that  the  cultus  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  meets 
wants  of  man's  devotional  nature,  no  less  really  than  does 
the  worship  of  Deity  in  a  second  personal  Form  incarnate  in 
Jesus  Christ. 

A  continental  theologian,  of  pre-eminent  learning  and  abil 
ity,  traces  the  existence  of  an  historical  parallelism  between 
the  gradual  exaltation  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  the  Deification 
of  her  Son  :  — 

"  The  history  of  the  worship  of  Mary  oifers  one  of  the  most 
instructive  parallels  to  that  of  the  dogma  of  the  Deity  of 
her  Son.  In  our  days,  and  notwithstanding  the  very  power 
ful  reasons  which  may  be  alleged  from  ancient  Catholic  Or 
thodoxy,  the  great  majority  of  ardent  Catholics  have  declared 
themselves  in  favor  of  the  dogma  of  the  Immaculate  Con*, 
ception,  without  exactly  knowing  what  this  may  mean,  and 

2 


18  PREMATURE   COMPARISONS. 

just  because  profound  devotion  to  Mary  finds  more  satisfac 
tion  in  proclaiming  this  doctrine  than  in  denying  it.  The 
gradual  deification  of  Mary,  though  slower  in  its  progress, 
follows,  in  the  Romish  Church,  a  course  analogous  to  that 
which  the  Church  of  the  first  centuries  followed,  in  elaborat 
ing  the  Deity  of  Jesus.  With  almost  all  the  Catholic  writers 
of  our  days,  Mary  is  the  universal  mediatrix ;  all  power  has 
been  given  to  her,  in  heaven,  and  upon  earth.  Indeed,  more 
than  one  serious  attempt  has  been  already  made  in  the  Ultra 
montane  camp  to  unite  Mary  in  some  way  to  the  Trinity; 
and  if  Mariolatry  lasts  much  longer,  this  will  probably  be 
accomplished  in  the  end."  -  —  Reville  :  History  of  the  Dogma 
of  the  Deity  of  Jesus  Christ  (p.  75). 

Sometimes  experience  is  cited,  and  Protestant  champions 
proclaim  loudly,  "  Take  away  belief  in  Christ's  Deity,  and 
you  take  away  an  element  of  mighty  attractive  and  awaken 
ing  power."  But,  when  scrutinized,  their  assertion  is  found  to 
rest  on  an  assumption  of  the  belief's  being  in  itself  a  spring 
of  vital  energy,  rather  than  the  eternal  and  generally  acknowl 
edged  verities  with  which  in  concrete  fact  the  belief  is  always 
joined.  Moreover,  in  comparisons  between  the  effectiveness 
of  Christian  Theism  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  theories  of 
the  Sacerdotal  and  Evangelical  schools  on  the,  other,  the 
enormous  force  of  sympathy  and  example  attending  widely 
prevalent  and  historically  rooted  opinion  is  systematically 
forgotten.  But,  with  the  gregarious  multitude,  this  force  is 
equal  to  most  potent  evidence,  and  averts  inquiry.  The  cir 
cumstance  that  a  particular  tenet  has  been  for  a  long  time, 
and  pretty  generally,  maintained,  suffices  to  draw  the  bulk  of 
mankind  into  professions  and  acts  for  which  they  have  never 
attempted  to  qualify  themselves  by  cogitation  and  research. 
Except  with  the  thinking  few,  devotional  feeling  and  practi 
cal  piety  have  unfolded  themselves  in  association  with  im 
plicit  uninquisitive  faith  in  orthodoxy.  All  living  religion  is, 
in  the  ideas  of  the  vast  majority  of  Christians,  entangled  with 
the  acceptance  of  Nicene  and  Athanasian  theologies.  We 
should  beware,  therefore,  of  instituting  comparisons  for  which 


CHARGE    OF    SPIRITUAL    IMPOTENCE.  19 

no  proper  materials  exist ;  and  it  is  very  premature  to  talk  of 
the  failure  of  Christian  Theism  to  reach  the  hearts  of  mill 
ions,  and  to  produce  the  spiritual  effects  of  the  Gospel  as 
presented  in  Evangelical  and  Catholic  preachings.  All  intro 
ductions  of  new  doctrines,  and  all  reformations  of  old,  are,  in 
their  earlier  stages,  unavoidably  open  to  the  charge  of  spirit 
ual  feebleness.  They  have  to  fight  against  heavy  odds,  and 
to  win  their  way  slowly.  And,  if  the  swelling  agitation  of 
theological  thought  in  this  country  is  fated  to  carry  Protest 
antism  to  the  natural  issues  of  primary  Protestant  axioms, 
the  progress  at  first  will  be  among  the  educated,  and  not 
among  the  unreflecting  masses,  who,  even  with  the  Bible  in 
their  hands,  are  very  slowly  incited  to  the  trouble  of  search 
ing  what  the  Bible  is,  what  the  Bible  means,  and  whether 
traditional,  systematic  theology  is  not  composed  as  much  of 
worthless  husk  as  of  precious  kernel  —  as  much  of  the  inven 
tions  and  mistaken  inferences  of  men,  as  of  the  revealed  and 
rationally  verifiable  messages  of  God. 

Popular  enthusiasm,  and  the  surgings  of  excited  religious 
emotions,  are  not  likely  to  be  at  once  allied  with  pure  Mono 
theism,  though  Monotheism  may  include  every  ingredient 
needful  to  satisfy  the  intellect  and  quicken  the  heart.  Fifteen 
centuries  of  inherited  tradition,  the  assent  of  successive  gener 
ations  numbering  hundreds  of  millions,  and  the  admixture 
of  unchanging,  inestimable  truths,  are  influences  which,  when 
they  concur,  break  up  tardily,  and  cannot  break  up  at  all 
without  lowering  for  a  time  the  pulse  of  religious  life.  If 
their  ecclesiastical  progenitors  have  taught  for  doctrines  the 
commandments  of  men,  consistent  Protestants  must  not 
fancy  they  can  undo  the  error  without  suffering  much  obstruc 
tion,  persistent  misrepresentation,  and  the  payment  of  a  pen 
alty  in  the  temporary  derangement  of  the  very  sentiments 
they  prize  most,  and  most  ardently  hope  to  expand  and 
intensify. 

But,  when  impotence  for  the  production  of  spiritual  results 
is  contrastingly  laid  to  the  charge  of  Theistic  or  undogmatic 
Christianity,  the  question  may  in  all  fairness  be  retorted, 


20  THE    CLAIMS    OF   THEISM. 

What  marked  spiritual  results  is  Protestant  Orthodoxy  now 
capable  of  producing?  Does  it  lay  hold  of,  arouse,  and 
satisfy  cultivated  minds  ?  Do  not  educated  men,  in  augment 
ing  numbers,  either  fall  away  from  it  wholly,  or  yield  to  it  no 
more  worthy  tribute  than  torpid  acquiescence  and  timid  con 
servatism  ?  In  minds  disposed  to  investigate,  it  survives  less 
and  less  through  the  conviction  that  it  is  true.  Its  remaining 
chance  is  with  the  bigoted,  the  ignorant,  and  the  unthinking. 
In  its  missionary  labors,  it  is  powerless  whenever  it  is  called 
to  confront  cultured  intellects  trained  in  the  more  refined  and 
spiritual  forms  of  non-Christian  faith.  What  has  it  ever 
been  able  to  accomplish  among  Mohammedans,  Jews,  and 
educated  Hindoos?  What  is  it  doing  in  any  country  of 
Europe  to  revive  among  the  masses  the  old  lively  faith  in  its 
own  distinctive  tenets,  or  to  raise  and  purify  morals  in  the 
common  relationships  and  transactions  of  life?  If  any  thing 
has  been  effected,  the  effect  has  assuredly  not  been  in  virtue 
of  the  dogma  that  God  is  Three  Persons  rather  than  One 
Father,  but  in  virtue  of  truths  which  are  the  property  of 
Theism  as  much  as  of  Ecclesiasticism.  What  orthodox  Prot 
estantism  did  achieve,  in  times  differing  in  moral  and  mental 
atmosphere  from  our  own,  is  fast  disappearing  now,  because 
it  built  upon  the  emotional,  without  a  proportionate  regard 
to  the  intellectual,  capacities  of  our  nature.  When  it  can 
manifest,  either  at  home  or  abroad,  some  conquering  might 
and  vitality,  it  may  excusably  venture  to  decry  the  spiritual 
efficacy  of  Christian  Theism,  but  not  before.  The  Theists 
may  justly  reply :  "  With  your  great  possession  of  num 
bers,  and  your  many  prescriptive  advantages,  we  should  con 
fidently  expect  to  propagate  our  faith  rapidly,  and  to  make 
the  One  God  and  His  commandments  universally  known  and 
honored." 

When  variations  of  moral  character  and  religious  opinion, 
in  successive  family  generations,  are  ascribed  to  definite 
causes,  conjecture  almost  necessarily  adulterates  deduction ; 
but  Theists  may,  at  the  least,  claim  to  be  as  successful  as 
orthodox  Protestants,  in  producing  descendants  of  sound 


GROWTH    OF    THE    THEISTIC    FAITH.  21 

morality  and  settled  convictions.  The  lapses  of  Evangelical 
offspring  from  the  faith  and  morals  of  their  fathers  are  only 
too  observable  ;  and  its  own  intellectual  deficiencies  generally 
insure  the  failure  of  Evangelicalism  in  the  second  educated 
generation.  Broad  facts,  in  the  present  day,  prohibit  Protest 
ant  Orthodoxy  from  boasting  of  superior  moral  and  spiritual 
effectiveness. 

And  further:  when  comparisons  are  instituted,  Theists 
may  justly  complain  against  the  identification  of  their  faith 
in  a  God  intelligibly  One,  with  the  peculiarities  and  some 
what  arbitrary  narrowness  of  Socinianism.  The  reformed 
communities  which  have  continued  rooted  in  the  Trinitarian 
tradition  would  probably  not  be  gainers  by  an  equitable  his 
torical  comparison  with  the  dryest  and  coldest  formal  Socin 
ianism.  Faults  and  deficiencies,  almost  equally  grave,  though 
very  diverse,  would  be  seen  to  exist  on  both  sides.  But  the 
Socinianism  of  bygone  times  is  not  identical  with  that  recti 
fied  faith  in  the  One  God  and  Father,  which,  as  distinguished 
from  faith  in  Three  Persons,  each  of  whom  by  Himself  is 
God,  is  the  chief  element  in  the  unorthodox  Christianity  now 
rising  in  its  might  to  wrestle  with  Catholicism  for  the  suf 
frages  of  spiritually  minded  thinkers.  And  it  would  be  vain 
to  deny  that  progress  has  been  made,  and  fruit  of  righteous 
ness  borne.  The  assaults  on  slavery,  and  other  social  evils  in 
America,  were  led  by  Unitarianism ;  and  in  the  instance  of 
slavery,  undoubtedly,  were  long  opposed  by  Orthodoxy.  Of 
Theistic  faith  Reville's  summary  is  strictly  true  :  — 

"  It  has  spread  \vith  marvellous  success  in  America.  From 
Boston,  its  principal  centre,  it  has  been  diffused  throughout 
Xew  England,  and  amongst  the  other  States.  Such  names 
as  those  of  Ware,  Channing,  and  Theodore  Parker,  are  in 
themselves  sufficient  to  shed  lustre  upon  a  religious  commun 
ion  of  recent  date.  Even  more  than  in  England,  has  it  ex 
tended  in  America  beyond  the  Unitarian  Churches,  properly 
so-called,  and  this  chiefly  amongst  the  Universalists  and  the 
Society  of  Friends.  Without  exaggeration  we  may  say, 
that  it  is  in  fact  the  religion  of  the  majority  of  enlightened 


22  ANGLICAN   ATTEMPT   TO    COMBINE. 

men  in  the  young  Republic.  From  it  have  sprung  the  great 
movements  in  matters  of  philanthropy  and  social  reform. 
The  unity  of  God  —  Christ  recognized  as  the  great  revealer 
and  the  model  of  the  truly  religious  life  —  love  as  being  the 
assential  attribute  of  God,  and  constituting  the  essential 
quality  of  the  Christian,  —  such  are  the  invariable  character 
istics  of  this  remarkable  tendency."  —  History  of  the  Dogma 
of  the  Deity  of  Jesus  Christ  (p.  139). 

The  desperate  plea  is  sometimes  advanced,  •'  Unitarianism 
makes  no  progress  among  the  poor."  Theists,  of  course, 
reply  by  frankly  admitting  the  passively  obstructive  power 
of  ignorance,  thoughtlessness,  and  intellectual  dependence. 
The  plea  is,  indeed,  only  another  symptom  of  the  tendency 
produced  by  theological  prepossession  to  build  on  the  ground 
of  mere  habit  and  blind  sentiment,  when  driven  from  the 
ground  of  intelligence.  The  doctrinal  religion  of  uneducated 
men  and  women  consists  usually  of  prevailing  tenets  unre 
flectingly  absorbed,  and  held  with  an  obstinacy  proportioned 
to  the  lack  of  thought.  The  practical  piety  and  conscien 
tiousness  of  the  poor  are  often  bright  and  elevating,  and  their 
errors  and  superstitions  are  not  the  reprehensible  conse 
quences  of  neglected  intellectual  duty. 

But  it  may  be  said :  Members  of  the  Established  Church, 
and  more  especially  the  clergy,  are,  in  all  honesty,  debarred 
from  Theism,  being  bound  by  solemn  promises  to  continuance 
in  the  orthodox  faith ;  the  authoritative  documents  and  for 
mularies  of  the  Church  affirm  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  Deity 
with  such  explicitness  as  to  leave  no  room  for  doubt,  no 
licence  for  discussion.  The  case  may  perhaps  be  so,  and 
would  without  doubt  be  so,  if  the  Church  had  not,  in  her  sixth 
Article,  pronounced  Holy  Scripture  to  be  the  sufficient  rule 
and  repertory  of  the  Christian  faith ;  in  her  twentieth  Article 
declared  the  sense  of  God's  Word  written  to  be  superior  to, 
and  restrictive  of,  the  Church's  decrees  and  expositions ;  and, 
in  her  Services  for  the  Ordination  of  Priests  and  Consecra 
tion  of  Bishops,  exacted  an  engagement  that  the  Sacred 
Scriptures  shall  be  the  fountain  of  doctrine,  and  the  dili- 


DISCORDANT   METHODS.  23 

gently  consulted  standard  and  guide.  These  Articles  and 
Services  throw  the  clergy  in  the  most  emphatic  way,  not 
upon  decisions  of  doctrine,  which  the  Church  has  ruled,  and 
not  upon  interpretations  to  which  the  Church  witnesses, 
but  upon  the  Bible  itself,  as  the  source  of  sound  doctrine 
and  the  bulwark  against  error.  If  their  expressions  are  to 
be  taken  in  the  plain,  unadulterated,  legitimate  meaning,  the 
Bible  is  made  supreme,  and  individual  judgments  are  invited 
and  enjoined  to  ponder  its  teaching,  and  follow  its  light. 
The  rudimentary  Protestant  principle  is  taken  for  granted, 
and  applied.  The  Holy  Scriptures  are  constituted  the  sole 
visible,  external,  sovereign  instrument,  from  which  the  reve 
lations  and  precepts  of  God  are  to  be  sought  and  accepted. 
The  Church  rears  no  Article  of  the  faith  upon  her  own  illu 
mination  and  authority,  but  refers  all  to  Scripture,  and  pre 
scribes  that  all  shall  harmonize  with,  and  bear  to  be  tried  by, 
Scripture.  Between  Holy  Scripture  and  private  judgment 
no  dominant  mediator,  no  divinely  delegated  instructor,  is 
made  to  intervene.  If  there  is  not  express  affirmation  that 
Scripture  was  written  for  the  very  purpose  of  teaching  the 
faith  to  all  the  ages,  there  is  the  assumption  that,  in  matter 
of  fact,  Scripture  is  the  single,  adequate,  authoritative  crite 
rion  and  embodiment  remaining  to  us  of  Apostolic  doctrine. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  may  be  argued :  The  Church  imposes 
on  the  minds  and  consciences  of  her  clergy  Thirty-nine  Arti 
cles,  and  the  general  significance  of  copious  Liturgical  For 
mularies,  thus  making  incumbent  the  acceptance  of  particular 
interpretations  of  Scripture,  and  forbidding  the  supposition 
of  her  either  encouraging  or  allowing  the  exercise  of  private 
judgment  in  deductions  from  the  Written  Word.  In  par 
ticular,  she  has  distinctly  affirmed  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
and  unreservedly  indorsed  the  three  Creeds.  Her  appeal  to 
Holy  Writ  is,  therefore,  merely  a  notification  that  therein 
she  has  found,  and  directs  her  clergy  to  find,  such  and  such 
tenets.  The  conclusions  to  be  arrived  at  are  in  reality  dic 
tated,  but,  in  exuberant  confidence  of  their  truth,  investiga 
tion  is  solicited,  and  even  enjoined.  The  one  foundation  on 


24        CONSEQUENT   WEAKENING    OF   THE   MORAL   SENSE. 

which  the  whole  superstructure  reposes  is  the  authority  of 
the  Church ;  but  the  authority  is  shown  in  expounding  an 
original  and  a  wealthy  deposit,  not  in  imparting  a  continuous 
revelation. 

But,  disguise  the  fact  how  we  will,  there  is  a  most  real  and 
confusing  incongruity  between  declaring  the  Bible  to  be  the 
one  sufficient  fountain  and  evidence  of  Christian  doctrine, 
and  imposing  Articles  and  Creeds  containing  hundreds  of 
propositions,  not  a  few  of  which  admit  of  no  respectable 
scriptural  proof.  Reference  to  the  Bible  is  nugatory  when 
what  we  are  to  find  in  the  Bible  is  prescribed  with  so  much 
elaboration ;  and  the  royalty  of  the  Church  is  reduced  to  a 
name  when  her  proclamations  are  submitted  to  the  test  of 
Scripture,  explored  by  individual  judgment.  The  contrariety 
between  Catholic  and  Protestant  first  principles  is  indestruc 
tible  ;  though  shackled  together,  and  imprisoned  within  the 
legal  fences  of  an  establishment,  they  are  not  reconciled,  and 
can  never  be  true  yoke-fellows. 

The  practical  effect  of  the  position  our  Church  occupies  is 
the  enfeeblement  among  her  clergy  of  the  sense  of  moral 
obligation  to  believe  her  dogmas.  By  her  unguarded  appeal 
to  the  Bible  she.  has  granted  so  much  freedom,  and  by  her 
multitudinous  propositions  inflicted  so  much  constraint,  that 
her  hold  upon  the  conscience  is  loosened,  and  her  moral  rights 
abridged.  When  religious  opinions  are  dictated,  it  is,  before 
all  things,  necessary  that  the  constitution  and  methods  of  the 
dictating  authority  should  be  clearly  and  concordantly  de 
fined.  If  discordant  premises  are  avowed,  and  perplexing 
directions  given,  the  claim  to  prescribe  is  forfeited,  and  the 
sense  of  obligation  sapped.  And  the  Church  of  England 
does  appear  to  be  justly  exposed  to  the  indictment  of  having 
attempted  to  amalgamate  irreconcilable  axioms,  and  to  build 
upon  two  incongruous  foundations.  This  may  not  have 
been  suspected  by  her  remodellerS  in  the  sixteenth  century ; 
they  may  have  failed  to  perceive  all  that  their  own  legislation 
of  compromise  involved;  but  the  letter  of  their  enactments, 
and  not  their  ignorance  or  their  intentions,  is  the  law  of  the 


NECESSITY   OF    UNAMBIGUOUS    AUTHORITY.  2'd 

Church.  Assumptions  virtually  at  variance  with  each  other, 
and  methods  which  cannot  be  harmonized,  are  mutually 
counterpoising,  and  leave  the  mind  unbound,  to  the  full 
extent  of  their  discrepancy.  The  fate  of  the  sitter  on  two 
stools  is  proverbial,  and  noAvhere  more  certain  than  in  the 
imposition  of  Articles  of  theological  belief. 

And,  over  and  beyond  the  general  deteriorating  result  ot 
inconsistent  primary  principles,  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  abso 
lute  Deity  is  surrounded  with  oppositions  of  thought  and 
expression,  which  make  the  voice  of  unambiguously  authori 
tative  injunction  doubly  needful.  The  Articles  begin  with 
an  announcement  of  the  Divine  Unity.  "  There  is  but  one 
living  and  true  God,  the  Maker  and  Preserver  of  all  things." 
Now,  if  inquiry,  reflection,  and  freedom  of  thought  are  not 
prohibited,  this  simple  declaration  will  appear  to  most  minds 
effectually  to  set  aside,  and  render  hopelessly  unmeaning,  the 
subsequent  statements  :  "  in  the  Unity  of  this  Divine  Nature 
there  be  three  Persons  of  the  same  substance,  power,  and 
eternity ; "  and  "  the  Son  is  very  and  eternal  God  of  one 
substance  with  the  Father."  To  insure  the  reception  of 
propositions  so  conflicting,  a  supreme  revealing  authority 
must  be  recognized  in  them.  The  Catholic  Churchman  does 
recognize  such  an  authority,  and,  with  the  recognition  and 
consequent  submission  of  mind  and  conscience,  his  difficulties 
are  ended,  and  his  way  is  logically  clear.  But  the  orthodox 
Protestant,  with  his  theories  about  the  right  and  duty  of 
private  judgment, — his  professed  dependence  on  the  Bible 
alone,  —  and  his  depreciation  of  the  Church's  revealing  func 
tions,  is  in  the  anomalous  posture  of  inviting  inquiry,  while 
in  practice,  and  by  indirect  reasonings,  he  with  tremulous 
vigilance  treats  the  dogma  of  Christ's  Godhead  as  a  point 
settled  for  ever,  and  on  no  account  to  be  reinvestigated  or 
reopened.  In  the  insuperable  difficulty  of  intelligible  and 
consistent  explanation,  unorthodox  men,  of  course,  discern  a 
demonstration  that  the  dogma  ought  not  to  be  made  a  term 
of  communion.  They  refuse  to  believe  that,  in  the  good 
news  from  God,  salvation  is  made  to  hang  upon  faith  in 


2  EFFECTS   OF   CLERICAL   SUBSCRIPTION. 

exceedingly  abstruse  and  enigmatical,  not  to  say  flatly  con 
tradictory,  definitions  respecting  the  Infinite,  Uncreated 
Nature. 

Arguing  from  the  mysteriousness  which  no  one  is  disposed 
to  deny,  they  contend  that,  presuming  the  actual  existence 
of  a  mystery  beyond  our  knowledge,  or  our  capacity  for 
knowledge,  we  are  not  thereby  justified  in  making  the  mys 
tery  a  subject  for  minutely  formal  statements.  If  the  intelli 
gence  of  orthodox  Protestants  had  not  been  terribly  dulled 
and  debased,  under  a  system  which,  without  bowing  to  a 
supreme  infallible  voice,  scorns  logic,  thought,  and  history, 
there  would  be  recognized  in  mysteriousness  the  most  con 
clusive  of  all  reasons  against  imposing  definitions ;  because 
the  very  idea  of  a  mystery  is,  that  which  the  mind  cannot 
grasp  and  formulate.  No  man,  or  society  of  men,  while 
abjuring  the  Church's  authoritatively  interpreting  and  reveal 
ing  functions,  is  legitimately  empowered  to  bind  upon  the 
conscience  doctrines  which  have  not  reasonable  evidence, 
and  do  not  admit  of  reasonable  detailed  exhibition.  To  what 
have  Sectarian  attempts  to  state  and  impose  dogmatic  puz 
zles  tended  ?  have  they  not  plainly  tended  to  weaken  united 
witness  in  favor  of  simple  spiritual  truths,  and  to  thwart 
united  action  for  good  ends  ? 

To  these  considerations  might  be  added  the  admitted  laxity 
engendered  by  the  foolish,  immoral,  and,  as  experience  proves, 
inefficacious  form  of  Clerical  Subscription  in  the  Established 
Church.  The  quantity  of  matter  imposed  is  so  excessive, 
that  legislative  interference  has  recently  diluted  the  quality 
of  the  assent,  and  now,  with  a  sanctioned  reduction  of  mean 
ing,  candidates  for  Holy  Orders  gravely  aver  their  agreement 
with  a  mass  of  propositions,  the  chief  of  which  their  Prot 
estant  theological  preceptors  devoutly  hope  they  may  never 
thoroughly  examine.  But  the  impolicy  and  worthlessness  of 
Clerical  Subscription,  as  nowT  exacted,  belongs  only  incident 
ally  to  my  subject.  It  conspires,  however,  with  other  and 
more  important  considerations,  to  relieve  consciences  from 
that  sense  of  obligation  to  faith  in  the  Deity  of  Jesus,  which 


EFFECTS   OF   CLERICAL    SUBSCRIPTION.  27 

declarations  of  assent  to  the  doctrine  contained  in  the  Angli 
can  Articles  and  Liturgy  might  not  unnaturally  be  expected 
to  awaken. 

Earnestness  and  conscientiousness,  when  joined  to  intelli 
gence,  afford  no  guarantee  that  a  Protestant  who  has  been 
caught  in  the  meshes  of  Clerical  Subscription  will  either 
rescind  his  vows,  and  cease  from  the  exercise  of  his  ministry, 
or  try  to  frame  his  faith  and  teaching  according  to  the  notions 
and  aims  of  the  divines  who  compiled  the  Articles  and  Book 
of  Common  Prayer.  In  many,  perhaps  the  majority  of 
instances,  devoted  and  upright  men  who  are  able  to  see  will 
disregard  the  pretensions  of  a  system  whose  rudimentary 
principles  nullify  each  other,  and  will  shape  their  conduct 
simply  by  their  perceptions  of  duty  to  God,  and  what  they 
believe  to  be  His  truth.  Ministrations  within  the  Established 
Church  occupy  the  most  advantageous  position  for  the  dis 
semination  of  precious  spiritual  truths,  and  for  the  promotion 
of  moral  improvement  and  practical  piety.  The  duty  of 
continuing  to  act  from  this  advantageous  position  is,  to  many 
morally  keen  and  sensitive  minds,  the  motive  which  deter 
mines  their  course,  and  emancipates  them  from  all  sense  of 
bondage  and  uneasiness  on  account  of  past  pledges  to  believe 
and  inculcate  a  mass  of  propositions,  which  would  still  be 
wantonly  burdensome,  even  if  they  did  not  jostle.  They 
adhere  to  one  fundamental  base  of  the  Church's  teaching; 
and  the  quantity  of  inconsistent  formally  enjoined  material, 
their  adhesion  causes  them  to  cast  away,  does  not,  after  the 
first  pain  of  awaking  to  the  perception  of  a  difficult  situation, 
disturb  the  serenity  of  conscience.  This  I  take  to  be  a  true 
account  of  prevalent  feeling  among  the  consistently  Protest 
ant,  or  Broad  Church,  Anglican  clergy.  The  retrograde 
and  impracticable  device  of  engrafting  Protestantism  on  to 
Catholicity  they  leave  to  men  whose  wisest  and  most  dutiful 
aspirations  are  directed  to  the  avoidance  of  unsettling  inquiry, 
and  the  perpetuation  of  the  motley  doctrinal  structure  which 
satisfied  the  more  eminent  English  Reformers. 

There  is,  however,  a  modification  of  the  device  just  named, 


28  ANGLICAN    VIA   MEDIA   DISCUSSED. 

not  destitute  of  plausibility;  a  cautiously  adjusted  middle 
way,  which  a  few  years  since  enlisted  the  suffrages  of  learned 
and  able  men ;  but  it  always  exasperated  hearty  Protestants, 
and  it  is  now  seen  to  fall  short  of  a  tenable  and  coherent 
Catholicity.  Put  in  its  best  form,  the  position  known  as  the 
Via  Media  may  be  thus  stated :  The  Primitive  Church  pos 
sessed  an  oral  tradition  setting  forth  explicitly  doctrines  which 
Scripture  contained  only  implicitly.  The  growth  and  settle 
ment  of  interpretation  practically  incorporated  this  tradition 
with  Scripture,  and  in  the  dogmatic  enunciations  of  the  first 
four  General  Councils  the  wrhole  of  the  Church's  inherited 
knowledge  in  its  bearing  on  controversies  of  faith  was  exhib 
ited  in  due  correlation  to  the  Divine  written  Word,  so  that 
no  more  room  was  left  for  development  and  elucidation. 
The  Bible  presents  obscurely  and  germinally,  the  Bible  and 
the  Creeds  present  perspicuously  and  definitively,  the  whole 
counsel  of  God,  so  far  as  that  counsel  need  be  compacted 
into  Articles  of  a  common  faith.  Further  developments  by 
definition  are  unnecessary,  if  not  mistaken,  and  would  cer 
tainly  be  spurious  should  they  involve  new  articles  of  belief. 

Now,  this  position  is  evidently  an  abandonment  of  Prot 
estant  principle,  and  the  query  inevitably  occurs :  What 
faculty  passes  judgment  adverse  to  developments  beyond 
the  date  of  the  fourth  General  Council,  or  beyond  the  enun 
ciations  of  the  Athanasian  Creed?  The  answer  must  be, 
reason  ;  and  if  reason  is  competent  for  that  decision,  why  is 
reason  to  be  precluded  from  examining  whether  the  Creeds 
bring  out,  add  to,  or  contravene  the  meaning  of  Scripture  ? 

From  the  Catholic  side,  too,  exception  may  be  justly  taken 
at  limitation,  which  seems  unwarranted  and  capricious.  If 
the  central  verity  of  orthodox  Christianity  was,  in  effect, 
trusted  to  the  knowledge,  and  formal  unfolding,  of  the 
Church,  it  is  certainly  probable  that  points  of  minor  impor 
tance  were  committed  to  the  same  instrumentality.  Why 
should  the  three  Creeds  accepted  by  Anglicans  be  supposed 
to  exhaust  the  Church's  stores  of  traditional  enlightenment, 
and  the  corresponding  Scriptural  supply  of  minute  dogmatic 


DUTY  OF  ORTHODOX  PROTESTANTS.         29 

germs  which  elude  the  eye  of  rational  research?  Why  are 
Papal  supremacy,  Masses  for  the  dead,  Purgatory,  and  Invo 
cation  of  Saints,  excluded  ?  The  ability  to  find,  in  the 
document  of  which  she  is  the  guardian  and  expositor,  senses 
which  none  but  herself  can  descry,  is  a  standing  manifesta 
tion  of  the  Church's  prerogatives  and  mission.  It  attests  at 
once  her  endowment  with  peculiar  wisdom,  and  the  wonder 
ful  adaptation  to  her  office  of  the  Book  whose  mystic  re 
cesses  she  alone  is  able  to  penetrate.  If  it  should  be  said, 
the  Church,  though  orally  inheriting  Apostolic  doctrine  not 
explicitly  contained  in  Holy  Scripture,  has  been  merely  the 
witness  and  historical  conduit  for  the  descent  of  that  doc 
trine,  then  her  teaching  is  surrendered  to  every  customary 
method  of  rational  investigation,  and  we  are  brought  back 
again  to  the  Protestant  basis. 

I  know  well  how  irksome  these  statements  will  appear  to 
men  who,  in  the  honest  infatuation  of  prejudice  and  half- 
knowledge,  are  sure  Protestantism  brings  no  peril  to  the 
dogma  of  Christ's  Deity.  They  eagerly  re-echo  —  "the 
Bible  does  teach  the  dogma  to  rational  and  painstaking 
searchers,"  —  and  they  can  perceive  nothing  illogical,  and  no 
forfeiture  of  moral  claims,  in  offering  the  Bible  to  individual 
judgment,  and,  at  the  same  time,  dictating  the  most  moment 
ous  conclusion  to  be  reached.  I  can  only  entreat  them,  for 
the  sake  of  the  doctrine  itself,  as  well  as  for  their  own  sakes, 
to  give  themselves  to  the  task  of  diligently  searching  the 
Scriptures,  with  the  single  view  of  ascertaining,  from  the 
indications  those  Scriptures  furnish,  what  were  the  mind  and 
meaning  of  the  writers.  Let  them,  at  least,  try  to  acquire 
that  familiarity  with  Scripture,  without  which  it  is  impossible 
to  understand  Scripture.  If,  in  any  other  department  of 
knowledge,  they  had  to  encounter  opponents  who  differed 
from  them  about  the  sense  of  a  document,  they  would  right 
eously  insist  that  the  diverse  interpretations  should  both  be 
carefully  studied,  or,  at  all  events,  that  the  document  itself 
should  be  read  without  predeterminations  and  bias.  Let 
them  accord  to  the  Volume,  for  which  they  profess  so  deep  a 


80  CHARACTERISTICS    OF   THE   REFORMATION. 

reverence,  the  fair  treatment  they  would  accord  to  any  other 
document  they  sincerely  desired  to  understand.  Let  the 
inquiry  not  be,  What  does  the  Church  teach  ?  or,  What  do 
the  bequeathed  and  widely  accepted  traditions  of  ages  teach  ? 
but,  What  saith  the  Scripture  ? 

JSTo  Protestant,  who  is  cognizant  of  the  large  variety  of 
opinions  entertained  by  men  who  start  from  the  same  funda 
mental  maxim,  —  "Scripture  alone  is  sufficient,"  —  needs  to 
be  reminded  how  easily  errors  harden  into  theories  which  are 
transmitted  and  buttressed  through  generations  of  blindly 
confiding  and  immovably  obstinate  adherents.  Ecclesiastical 
history,  as  Protestants  read  it,  is  one  continuous  note  of 
warning  against  human  liability  to  falsehood  and  corruption, 
and  human  persistency  in  upholding  false  doctrines  which 
have  once  gained  a  footing.  If  the  Bible  is,  indeed,  the  sole 
sufficient  rule  and  storehouse  of  doctrine,  the  reference  to  it 
should  be  incessant,  free,  and  watchfully  impartial.  For  the 
genuine  Protestant,  who  would  keep  a  good  conscience  to 
wards  God  and  towards  his  brethren,  there  is  no  other 
course.  What  would  a  Trinitarian  Protestant  think  of  some 
sturdy  Monotheist  who  should  be  abusively  confident  in  his 
faith,  without  having  weighed  the  Trinitarian  scheme  of  in 
terpretation,  or  endeavored  to  look  at  the  Bible  from  the 
Trinitarian  point  of  view?  Timidity,  reserve,  reluctance  to 
study  conflicting  expositions  on  prominent  and  presumedly 
vital  points,  are,  in  men  who  make  the  Bible  their  standard, 
suggestive  of  weak  diffidence  and  moral  cowardice,  if  not  of 
culpable  negligence  and  positive  dishonesty. 

The  mere  fact  that  a  stream  of  traditionalism  on  the  sub 
ject  of  Christ's  Deity  has  flowed  on  in  Protestant  communi 
ties  from  the  time  of  the  Reformation  is  no  proof  the  stream 
is  the  tide  of  truth.  The  Reformation  in  England  accepted, 
and  permitted  to  survive,  most  things  not  manifestly  corrupt 
and  mischievous.  The  removal  of  practical  evils  was  far 
more  aimed  at  than  the  purification  of  dogmatic  theology. 
Wherever  dogmas  were  struck,  the  blow  was  instigated  by 
crying  abuses  with  which  they  had  become  entwined.  What- 


THE   IMPOLICY   OF    SUPPRESSION.  31 

ever  did  not  directly  minister  to  the  usurpations  and  vicious 
procedures  of  the  priestly  order  was  very  generally  retained, 
and,  unquestionably,  large  sections  of  existing  ecclesiastical 
exposition  were,  by  tacit  consent,  preserved  intact ;  and  thus 
a  potent  directing  impulse,  not  yet  spent,  was  carried  over 
into  Protestant  interpretation  of  Scripture.  In  the  pathway 
of  untrammelled,  searching,  and  rational  understanding  of 
the  Bible,  this  impulse  has  been  a  stubborn  impediment, 
causing  men  to  stop  short  with  assuming  the  Canonical  Writ 
ings  to  afford  ample  proofs  of  Christ's  Godhead ;  of  which, 
in  reality,  they  afford  no  proof  whatever,  unless  they  are 
subordinated  to  the  Church's  light  and  supremacy.  But 
reflecting  Protestants  in  these  days  are  ceasing  to  be  satisfied 
with  the  assumption.  They  are  beginning  to  act  upon  their 
distinctive  axiom,  and  to  feel  they  must  either  renounce  that 
axiom,  or  abide  by  the  consequences  it  entails. 

No  policy  can  really  be  worse  for  Protestantism  than  the 
policy  of  suppression  and  half-information,  which  is  in  vogue 
at  theological  seminaries.  The  claims  of  the  Church  are 
repudiated ;  the  claims  of  the  Bible  are,  indeed,  laid  down  in 
theory,  but  are  neutralized  in  practice,  by  the  weight  of 
received,  unsifted  interpretations,  and  the  opinions  of  selected 
commentators.  No  foundation  is  felt  beneath  the  feet,  no  ru 
dimentary  principle  or  preliminary  assumption  is  heartily 
grasped  and  fearlessly  reasoned  from.  Theological  students 
are  not  encouraged  to  be  candid,  unshrinking,  and  consistent  in 
the  application  of  any  fundamental  aphorism.  The  very  aim 
of  their  education  would  seem  to  be  the  production  (as  varie 
ties  of  individual  material  may  determine)  of'  unreasoning, 
tenacious  bigots,  and  of  apprehensive  faint-hearted  shufflers, 
unacquainted  with  the  strength  of  their  adversaries'  position, 
and  the  details  of  their  adversaries'  tactics,  and  so  utterly 
unable  effectively  to  repulse  their  adversaries'  assaults.  If 
fear,  hatred,  and  contempt  of  heresy  can  be  instilled  without 
any  frank  examination  of  heretical  arguments,  the  grand  end 
of  orthodox  Protestant  theological  training  would  apppear 
to  be  achieved.  That  this  state  of  things  is  not  extremely 


32  ONLY  THE  TRUTH  CAN  PROSPER. 

perilous,  no  sensible  man  will  imagine.  The  surface  may  for 
a  while  be  kept  smooth,  but  the  doctrines  shielded  and  fos 
tered  by  such  false  methods  are  being  surely  undermined 
and  betrayed. 

Even  in  theology,  nothing  but  truth  and  straightforwardness 
can  eventually  prosper.  And  it  is  not  truthful  and  straight 
forward  proceeding  to  parade  the  Bible  as  far  as  the  Bible 
will  serve,  and  then,  by  sleight  of  hand  and  under  cover  of 
the  Bible's  name,  to  import  ecclesiastical  assumptions.  If 
the  notion  that  Holy  Scripture,  reasonably  interpreted  by  its 
own  light,  is  the  sole  and  sufficient  Rule  of  Christian  faith,  is 
mistaken,  let  it  be  resigned ;  if  it  is  correct,  let  it  be  boldly 
adhered  to,  acted  upon,  and  admitted  in  all  its  logical  results. 
Whether  the  notion  is  or  is  not  compatible  with  Orthodoxy 
cannot  be  tried  by  a  better  and  more  crucial  test  than  the 
dogma  for  which  Mr.  Liddon  argues.  If  it  fails  with  respect 
to  this  dogma,  its  failure  in  relation  to  Orthodoxy  is  complete 
and  irreparable. 

But,  whether  it  fails  or  not,  every  man  set  apart  to  the 
Clerical  office  should  be  compelled  by  his  theological  educa 
tion  to  subject  it  to  severe  scrutiny,  and  so  to  estimate  its  real 
worth.  Lack  of  knowledge  of  the  Scriptural  argument,  as 
set  forth  by  those  who  doubt  or  deny  the  coessential  God 
head  of  Jesus,  is  a  real  disqualification  for  the  effectual  dis 
charge  of  Ministerial  duty.  The  individual  faith  of  the 
teacher  is  timorous  and  intellectually  nerveless  ;  he  is  tempted 
continually  to  cast  his  burden  upon  man,  and  to  lean  upon  a 
consensus  of  great  divines ;  cogitation,  search,  reliance  upon 
God,  and  "  God's  written  Word,"  are,  in  practice,  abjured,  and 
the  pages  of  fallible  orthodox  commentators  are  resorted  to, 
for  consoling  and  conclusive  corroboration  of  prejudgments 
already  backed  by  powerful  incentives,  and  therefore  need 
ing,  the  more  urgently,  scrupulous  inspection  and  testing. 
The  faith  of  the  taught  unavoidably  suffers,  and  is  mentally 
too  sickly  to  endure  trial,  b9cause  it  stands  upon  deficient 
and  delusive  instruction.  Intellectual  defencelessness  is  not, 
indeed,  immediately,  though  it  is  ultimately,  a  fatal  flaw  in 


INADEQUACY   OF   THE   SENTIMENTAL   BASIS.  33 

religious  belief.  What  has  been  remarked  upon  another  sub 
ject,  by  a  great  leader  of  thinkers  in  our  day,  is  especially 
applicable  to  faith  in  religious  dogmas,  and  to  none  more 
than  to  Protestant  faith  in  the  Deity  of  our  Master  Jesus 
Christ. 

"  So  long  as  an  opinion  is  strongly  rooted  in  the  feelings, 
it  gains  rather  than  loses  in  stability  by  having  a  preponder 
ating  weight  of  argument  against  it.  For  if  it  were  accepted 
as  a  result  of  argument,  the  refutation  of  the  argument 
might  shake  the  solidity  of  the  conviction ;  but  when  it 
rests  solely  on  feeling,  the  worse  it  fares  in  argumentative 
contest,  the  more  persuaded  its  adherents  are  that  their  feel 
ing  must  have  some  deeper  ground,  which  the  arguments  do 
not  reach ;  and  while  the  feeling  remains,  it  is  always  throw 
ing  up  fresh  intrenchments  of  argument  to  repair  any  breach 
made  in  the  old."  —  J.  S.  Mill 

But,  as  regards  a  dogma  so  grave  and  aspiring,  we  ought 
not  to  rest  satisfied  with  the  unfixed,  temporary  tenure  of 
blind  but  earnest  feeling.  Real  lovers  of  truth  will  not  be  at 
ease  in  the  habit  of  listening  delightedly  to  reason  in  confir 
mation  of  long-descended  theory,  while  reason  is  refused  a 
hearing  against  that  theory.  ISTeither  will  they  be  content 
to  call  even  their  dearest  prejuclgments  their  "  highest  relig 
ious  feelings  and  instinctive  perceptions,"  and  they  will 
hesitate  to  give  themselves  airs  of  profound  philosophy,  in 
"  evolving  from  their  own  inner  consciousness  "  a  theological 
dogma  which  defies  consistent  exposition. 

If,  by  a  searching,  and,  I  trust,  thoroughly  fair  examination 
of  Mr.  Liddon's  appeal  to  Scripture,  I  can  help  others  to  see 
the  true  basis  on  which  the  Orthodox  doctrine  concerning 
Christ's  Person  must  be  placed,  my  object  will  have  been 
gained.  For  a  dozen  years  after  my  Ordination,  I  was  as 
firmly  convinced  as  any  man,  who  had  read  a  good  deal  on 
one  side  of  the  question  and  nothing  on  the  other,  could  be, 
that  a  reasonable  exposition  of  Holy  Scripture  yielded  the 
conclusion  of  Christ's  Godhead.  But  a  popular  Evangelical 
book,  in  which  Jesus  was  everywhere,  and  God  our  Father 

3 


34  THE  AUTHOR'S  WISHES  AND  AIMS. 

almost  nowhere,  provoked  suspicions  that  Protestant  ortho 
doxy  was,  in  its  central  feature,  out  of  Scriptural  method  and 
proportion,  and  repeated  examinations  (the  last  in  company 
with  Mr.  Liddon)  have  convinced  me  of  the  inability  of  un 
biassed  individual  judgment,  rationally  exercised,  to  deduce 
from  the  Bible  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  coequal  Deity.  As 
suming  the  doctrine  to  be  from  God,  facts  of  the  plainest 
character  appear  to  compel  the  admission  that  He  has  seen 
fit  to  promulgate  it,  not  through  the  Sacred  Volume,  but 
through  the  living  voice  of  a  divinely  organized  and  divinely 
inspired  Church.  Men  who  esteem  Orthodoxy  a  vitally 
precious  possession  gain  nothing,  and  risk  the  loss  of  every 
thing,  when  they  strive  to  put  the  doctrine  on  a  basis  differ 
ent  from  that  which  the  Almighty  in  His  wisdom  has  chosen 
to  provide. 

For  the  matter  of  the  following  pages  I  have  no  apology  to 
offer,  and  do  not  deprecate  any  just  criticism,  however  strin 
gent  and  severe.  I  only  ask  at  the  hands  of  Reviewers  who 
may  deem  me  worth  their  attention  "  the  same  measure 
which  I  have  meted."  I  have  tried,  with  anxious  care,  to 
present  Mr.  Liddon's  case  equitably,  and  to  reproduce  and 
dissect  the  whole  strength  and  substance  of  his  reasonings 
from  Holy  Scripture.  His  treatment  of  critical  questions 
bearing  upon  the  accuracy  and  authorship  of  the  Sacred 
Books  is  extrinsic  and  incidental,  and  so,  in  consequence,  is 
mine.  For  a  full  and  adequate  discussion  of  such  questions, 
the  theological  reader  must  look  elsewhere.  The  main,  and 
more  completely  treated  subject  is  the  meaning  of  the 
Canonical  Scriptures,  assuming  them  to  be,  in  origin  and 
authority,  all  that  Mr.  Liddon  imagines. 

Whatever  opinion  may  be  formed  of  Mr.  Liddon's  reasoning, 
his  rhetoric  cannot  fail  to  be  admired.  No  treatise  so  at 
tractively  eloquent  as  his  has  been  written  upon  the  same  sub 
ject.  And,  although  his  arguments  are  not  always  well  selected, 
and  his  special  ability  evidently  does  not  lie  in  the  direction 
of  vigorous  thought  and  close  disputation,  yet  his  Lectures, 
taken  as  a  whole,  deserve  the  foremost  place  among  books 


HIS    COURSE    OF    ARGUMENT.  85 

on  his  side  of  the  controversy.  If  he  has  rehabilitated  some 
pleadings  palpably  too  inane  and  bad,  he  has,  at  the  same 
time,  omitted  nothing  pertinent  and  plausible.  He  brings 
forth  every  weighty  argument  arrayed  in  the  best  dress  it  can 
be  made  to  wear. 

My  own  book  I  must  leave  to  speak  for  itself.  Its  faults 
will,  doubtless,  be  even  more  obvious  to  other  eyes  than  they 
are  to  mine.  It  is  certainly  not  the  book  of  a  rhetorician, 
and  in  that  aspect  I  gladly  acknowledge  the  unapproachable 
superiority  of  Mr.  Liddon's  volume.  My  heart's  prayer  and 
purpose  have  been  wholly  directed  to  the  end  of  writing 
truthfully,  calmly,  and  clearly.  While  I  have  never  been 
forgetful  of  corrections  and  amendments  in  readings  and 
renderings,  I  have  shunned  all  needless  references  to  the 

&     " 

Hebrew  and  Greek  languages,  and  have,  I  hope,  written 
nothing  which  general  readers,  of  good  English  education, 
will  not  be  quite  sufficiently  able  to  follow.  Writing  anony 
mously,  I  have  naturally  preferred,  at  several  points,  to 
strengthen  my  positions  by  quotations  from  authors  of  un 
doubted  eminence  and  scholarship.  The  course  of  Mr.  Lid 
don's  argument  has,  in  all  important  features,  determined 
the  course  of  mine,  which  is  really  a  close  running  commen 
tary  ;  but  I  have  departed  from  his  order  of  topics,  and, 
in  particular,  have  made  the  examination  of  texts  from  the 
Epistles  precede  the  examination  of  sayings  recorded  in  the 
Gospels.  I  may  add,  that  my  criticisms  were  not  written 
continuously,  but  at  intervals  (sometimes  wide  intervals),  as 
I  could  find  leisure  from  the  requirements  of  parochial 
work. 

In  tracking  the  brilliant  preacher's  footsteps,  and  meditat 
ing  upon  his  methods,  I  have  been  increasingly  impressed 
with  the  justice  and  accuracy,  from  the  Protestant  point  of 
view,  of  the  folloAving  sentences  in  that  contribution  by 
Professor  Jowett,  which  is  the  gem  of  the  much-abused,  but 
essentially  Protestant  volume,  "  Essays  and  Reviews." 

"  All  the  resources  of  knowledge  may  be  turned  into  a 
means.,  not  of  discovering  the  true  rendering,  but  of  uphold- 


36  THE    JUSTICE    OF    JOWETT'S    STATEMENT. 

ing  a  received  one.  Grammar  appears  to  start  from  an  inde 
pendent  point  of  view,  yet  inquiries  into  the  use  of  the 
Article  or  the  Preposition  have  been  observed  to  wind  round 
into  a  defence  of  sound  doctrine.  Rhetoric  often  magnifies 
its  own  want  of  taste  into  the  design  of  inspiration.  Logic 
(that  other  mode  of  rhetoric)  is  apt  to  lend  itself  to  the  illu 
sion,  by  stating  erroneous  explanations  with  a  clearness 
which  is  mistaken  for  truth.  '  Metaphysical  aid '  carries 
away  the  common  understanding  into  a  region  where  it  must 
blindly  follow.  Learning  obscures  as  well  as  illustrates;  it 
heaps  up  chaff  when  there  is  no  more  wheat.  These  are 
some  of  the  ways  in  which  the  sense  of  Scripture  has  be 
come  confused,  by  the  help  of  tradition,  in  the  course  of 
ages,  under  a  load  of  commentators." 

And,  again,  an  undeniable  but  perpetually  neglected  truth 
is  well  presented  in  the  words :  — 

"Many  persons  who  have  no  difficulty  in  tracing  the 
growth  of  institutions,  yet  seem  to  fail  in  recognizing  the 
more  subtle  progress  of  an  idea.  It  is  hard  to  imagine 
the  absence  of  conceptions  with  which  we  are  familiar;  to 
go  back  to  the  germ  of  what  we  know  only  in  maturity ;  to 
give  up  what  has  grown  to  us,  and  become  a  part  of  our 
rninds." 


CHAPTER   II. 

Precise  statement  of  the  dogma  maintained,  and  of  some  more  general 
objections  to  which  it  is  exposed.  —  Mr.  Liddon's  theories  respecting 
the  organic  unity,  perfect  trustworthiness,  and  minute  accuracy  of 
the  Scriptural  records,  not  sustainable  in  the  presence  of  free  inquiry. 
—  His  argument  for  the  Apostolic  authorship  of  the  Fourth  Gospel 
considered,  and  some  leading  points  of  adverse  evidence  stated.  —  On 
this  topic,  Orthodox  preconceptions  have  the  practical  advantage  of 
forbidding  intelligent  criticism.  —  Though  Mr.  Liddon's  method  is 
critically  unsound,  and  devised  for  the  service  of  his  dogma,  he  may 
nevertheless  be  met  upon  his  own  assumptions,  and  convicted  of 
arbitrary  and  irrational  interpretation  of  Scripture. 

IN  his  first  Lecture,  Mr.  Liclclon  states  briefly  and  clearly 
the  doctrine  he  asserts.  After  pointing  out  the  insufficiency 
of  moral  divinity  resulting  from  any  gift  or  infusion  of  the 
Divine  presence  in  man,  he  excludes  all  forms  of  Being,  how 
ever  ancient  and  exalted,  which  had  in  any  sense  a  beginning 
and  an  author.  Such  forms  of  Being  are  "  parted  from  the 
Divine  Essence  by  a  fathomless  chasm  ;  whereas  the  Christ 
of  Catholic  Christendom  is  internal  to  That  Essence."  He 
further  informs  us  :  — 

"This  assertion  of  the  Divinity  of  Jesus  Christ  depends  on 
a  truth  beyond  itself.  It  postulates  the  existence  in  God  of 
certain  real  distinctions  having  their  necessary  basis  in  the 
Essence  of  the  Godhead.  That  Three  such  distinctions  exist 
is  a  matter  of  Revelation.  In  the  common  language  of  the 
Western  Church,  these  distinct  Forms  of  Being  are  named 
Persons.  Yet  that  term  cannot  be  employed  to  denote 
Them,  without  considerable  intellectual  caution,"  and  must 
be  understood  in  a  sense  different  from  that  in  which  it  is 
applied  to  men ;  but  "  we  are  not,  therefore,  to  suppose 
nothing  more  to  be  intended  by  the  revealed  doctrine  than 
three  varying  relations  of  God  in  His  dealings  with  the 
world.  On  the  contrary,  His  Self-Revelation  has  for  its 


38  THE    DOGMA    STATED. 

basis  certain  Eternal  Distinctions  in  His  Nature,  which  are 
themselves  utterly  anterior  to,  and  independent  of,  any  rela 
tion  to  created  life.  Apart  from  these  distinctions,  the 
Christian  Revelation  of  an  Eternal  Fatherhood,  of  a  true 
Incarnation  of  God,  and  of  a  real  communication  of  His 
Spirit,  is  but  the  baseless  fabric  of  a  dream.  These  three 
distinct  Subsistences  which  we  name  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit, 
while  they  enable  us  better  to  understand  the  mystery  of 
the  Self-sufficing  and  Blessed  Life  of  God  before  lie  sur 
rounded  Himself  with  created  beings,  are  also  strictly  com 
patible  with  the  truth  of  the  Divine  Unity.  And  when  wre 
say  that  Jesus  Christ  is  God,  we  mean  that  in  the  Man 
Christ  Jesus,  the  Second  of  these  Persons  or  Subsistences, 
One  in  Essence  with  the  First  and  with  the  Third,  vouch 
safed  to  become  Incarnate  ;  "  i.e.,  as  explained  in  the  next 
paragraph,  "  He  robed  His  Higher  Prc-existent  Nature, 
according  to  which  He  is  Very  and  Eternal  God,  with  a 
Human  Body  and  a  Human  Soul  "  (pp.  32-34). 

These  theories  are  supplemented  in  Lecture  V.  by  more 
precise  statements  respecting  Christ's  incarnate  Being.  Mr. 
Liddon  insists  that  our  Lord's  Godhead  is  exclusively  the 
seat  of  His  personality. 

"The  Son  of  Mary  is  not  a  distinct  human  person  mysteri 
ously  linked  with  the  Divine  Nature  of  the  Eternal  Word. 
The  Person  of  the  Son  of  Mary  is  Divine  and  Eternal. 
.  .  .  Christ's  Manhood  is  not  of  Itself  an  individual  beino-; 

O  7 

It  is  not  a  seat  and  centre  of  personality ;  It  has  no  conceiv 
able  existence  apart  from  the  act  whereby  the  Eternal  Word, 
in  becoming  Incarnate,  called  It  into  being  and  made  It  His 
Own.  It  is  a  vesture  which  He  has  folded  around  His  Per 
son;  It  is  an  instrument  through  which  He  places  Himself  in 
contact  with  men,  and  whereby  He  acts  upon  humanity.  .  .  . 
His  Manhood  no  more  impaired  the  unity  of  His  Person  than 
each  human  body,  with  its  various  organs  and  capacities, 
impairs  the  unity  of  that  personal  principle  which  is  the  cen 
tre  and  pivot  of  each  separate  human  existence,  and  which 
has  its  seat  within  the  soul  of  each  one  of  us.  'As  the 


CRITICISMS    ON    THE    STATEMENT.  39 

reasonable  soul  and  flesh  is  one  man,  so  God  and  man  is 
one  Christ.'  As  the  personality  of  man  resides  in  the  soul, 
after  death  has  severed  soul  and  body,  so  the  Person  of 
Christ  had  Its  eternal  seat  in  His  Godhead  before  His  Incar 
nation  "  (pp.  259,  260). 

From  the  foregoing  extracts  we  gather  that,  in  Mr.  Lid- 
don's  view,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  has  a  necessary  Being  in 
the  Self-existent  Everlasting  Deity,  —  a  Being  not  derived 
from,  not  originating  in,  and  in  no  way  whatever  dependent  on, 
the  choice,  or  power,  or  action  of  the  Father.  He  belongs  to 
the  necessary  mode  of  the  Self-existent  Essence,  and  is  bound 
up  within  It  by  the  indissoluble  bonds  of  inherent  nature. 

Now,  although  on  the  whole  evidence  of  which  Protestants 
can  take  cognizance  this  doctrine  is  incredible,  there  might, 
on  merely  a  priori  ground,  be  no  valid  objection  against  it, 
if  it  were  taught  by  a  competent  authority.  Self-existence 
—  which  must  be  ascribed  to  the  Almighty  —  is  a  property 
so  utterly  beyond  the  grasp  of  our  intellect,  that  we  are  in  no 
position  to  deny,  either  that  one  Self-existent  Substance  may 
be  distributed  into  two,  three,  or  more  individuals,  the  exact 
counterparts  of  each  other,  or  that  there  may  be  Self-exist 
ent  Substances  distinguished  by  differences  from  each  other. 
But  we  do  not  approach  the  subject  on  purely  abstract  and 
a  priori  grounds.  Reflection,  on  our  own  nature  and  the 
works  of  creation  which  surround  us,  points  to  the  conclusion 
there  is  One  Being,  and  One  only,  in  Whom  the  mysterious 
attributes  of  Deity  reside.  And  this  conclusion,  which  com 
mends  itself  to  natural  reason,  the  teaching  of  Scripture  con 
firms  with  marked  emphasis,  and  frequent  repetitions.  Mr. 
Liddon's  theory  is,  however,  a  virtual  denial  of  the  Divine 
Unity,  because  we  are  unable,  without  dividing  the  Self- 
existent  Substance,  to  recognize  in  That  Substance  two  or 
more  Forms,  Subsistences,  or  Persons,  each  of  Whom,  hav 
ing  all  the  attributes  of  Godhead,  is  truly  and  properly  God. 
Attributes  or  properties  are  inconceivable  apart  from  a  sub 
stance  in  which  they  have  a  connecting  and  supporting  basis, 
and  no  specious  refinements  of  phraseology  can  hide  the  fact 


40  CRITICISMS   ON   THE   STATEMENT. 

that  the  possession  of  personal  attributes  implies  the  posses 
sion  of  distinct  individual  Being.  If  the  Second  and  Third 
Persons  in  the  Trinity  have  the  attributes  of  Deity,  they  are 
second  and  third  Gods.  The  supposition  that  they  are  of 
the  same  Self-existent  Substance  with  the  First  Person 
gives  them  no  real  numerical  unity,  but  makes  them  exact 
counterparts  and  fac-similes  of  each  other.  If  by  person 
is  meant  any  thing  more  than  a  manifestation  in  action,  or 
a  mode,  aspect,  and  relation,  as  conceived  and  contemplated 
by  our  minds,  a  threefold  personality  in  one  Divine  Essence 
is  a  division  of  that  Essence  into  three  separate  Gods;  and, 
since  ideas  of  quantity  are  inapplicable,  these  Gods  are  repe 
titions  of  each  other,  and  Deity,  according  to  the  language 
which  I  have  quoted,  is  the  same  Infinite  Spirit  three  times 
repeated.  If  we  are  compelled  to  confess  each  Person  to  be, 
by  Himself  (singittatim),  God  and  Lord,  clearly  not  reason, 
but  inspiration  and  infallibility  alone,  can  prohibit  us  from 
believing  and  saying  there  are  three  Gods.  This  obvious 
dilemma  does  not  escape  Mr.  Liddon's  notice,  and  in  a  note 
to  his  first  Lecture  he  adduces  the  perfectly  unintelligible 
patristic  imagination  of  a  mutual  indwelling,  or  interhabita- 
tion,  by  which  the  three  Forms,  Subsistences,  &c.,  in  the 
Divine  Substance,  having  gone  forth  into  plurality,  recede 
into  oneness,  and  sees  in  it  "  the  safeguard  and  witness  of 
the  Divine  Unity."  *  Elsewhere,  in  subsequent  Lectures, 
mention  is  more  than  once  made  of  our  Lord's  subordina 
tion,  on  the  ground  that  the  Father  alone  is  "  Unoriginate,  the 
Fount  of  Deity  in  the  Eternal  Life  of  the  Ever-blessed  Trin 
ity,"  and  that  the  "  Son  is  derived  eternally  from  the  Father." 
"  Christ  is  the  exact  likeness  of  the  Father,  in  all  things 
except  being  the  Father."  But  these  verbal  precautions  are 
unavailing ;  they  have  no  lucid  ideas  behind  them,  and  do 

*  John  xiv.  11  ;  1  Cor.  ii.  11,  to  which  Mr.  Liddon  refers,  should  be 
compared  with  John  xiv.  20 ;  xvii.  21,  23  ;  1  John  iv.  15,  16  ;  v.  20,  and 
other  texts  which  will  occur  to  every  thoughtful  reader  of  the  New  Test 
ament.  Aspects  of  this  profoundly  mysterious  Unity  in  Personal  sepa 
ration  are  expressed  by  the  terms  immanence,  emanence,  and  retrocession. 


ACCOUNT  OF  THE  INCARNATION.  41 

not  in  any  degree  shelter  the  doctrine  of  the  Divine  Unity, 
unless  they  are  joined  with  the  admission  that  the  derivation 
of  the  Son  was  not  from  a  necessity  inherent  in  the  Self- 
existent  Substance,  but  from  an  act  of  the  Father's  choice, 
and  power,  and  will.  Mr.  Liddon,  however,  cannot  admit  the 
Being  of  the  Son  to  result  from  any  free  and  voluntary 
action  on  the  part  of  the  Father,  because  origination  by  the 
will  of  another  is  not  distinguishable  from  creation,  and  im 
plies  inferiority  and  dependence.  The  statement  of  his  doc 
trine  is,  therefore,  incompatible  with  the  truth  of  the  Divine 
Unity,  and  also  with  the  verbal  requirements  of  ecclesiastical 
orthodoxy.  He  throws  out  clouds  of  subtile,  eloquent,  and 
bewildering  words  ;  but  his  language,  if  it  is  not  quite  empty 
of  meaning,  leads  to  one  of  two  heresies,  —  either  the  divid 
ing  of  the  Substance,  or  the  confounding  of  the  Persons. 

Mr.  Liddon's  account  of  the  manner  of  the  Incarnation  is 
as  much  open  to  criticism  as  his  description  ot  supposed 
structural  economies  in  the  inner  regions  of  the  "One  Un 
created,  Self-existent,  Incorruptible  Essence."  He  avows  : 
our  Lord  "  took  human  nature  upon  Him  in  its  reality  and 
completeness;"  and  then,  afterwards,  denies  Christ  had  a 
human  person,  and  declares,  "  His  Manhood  is  not  of  Itself 
an  individual  being."  Surely  this  is  a  contradiction  in  terms. 
"What  is  a  "  real  and  complete  "  impersonal  human  nature  ? 
Our  nature,  in  its  completeness,  is  inconceivable,  except  as 
existing  in  persons.  To  enfold  a  Divine  Person  with  the 
constituent  elements  of  humanity,  not  combined  into  the 
living  entity  of  a  real  human  person,  is  not  to  take  our  nature, 
but  to  form  a  new  nature,  which  is  God  plus  what  might  in 
another  combination  have  been  man.  The  dwelling  of  God 
in  man  is  a  thoroughly  credible  and  ennobling  truth,  the  con 
ception  of  which  pervades  all  religious  history,  and  lies  at  the 
root  of  all  spiritual  aspiration  and  development ;  but  the  robing 
personal  Deity  with  an  impersonal  manhood  is  an  operation 
which  defies  understanding,  and,  whatever  else  it  may  be,  is 
certainly  not  taking  "  our  nature  in  its  reality  and  complete 
ness."  The  reception  of  a  personal  manhood  into  God  is,  in 


42  ASSUMPTIONS    AS   TO    THE    BIBLE. 

any  case,  a  process  the  inversion  of  that  to  which  reason  and 
spiritual  instinct  point,  but  the  clothing  of  God  with  "  a  man 
hood  which  is  not  of  itself  an  individual  being  "  is  an  eccentric 
fancy  which  Scripture  never  hints  at,  and  reason  refuses  to  en 
tertain.  The  futility  of  the  illustrative  proposition  from  the 
Athanasian  Creed  —  "as  the  reasonable  soul  and  flesh  is  one 
man,  so  God  and  man  is  one  Christ"-  — is  evident  when  we 
write :  "  so  God  and  the  reasonable  soul  and  flesh  is  one 
Christ."  The  fact  of  two  constituents  composing  one  Being 
does  not  assist  us  to  apprehend  how  the  same  two  constituents 
together  with  a  personal  God  compose  one  Being. 

In  his  attempts  to  prove  the  position  taken  in  his  Lectures 
deducible  from  Scripture,  Mr.  Liddon  assumes  the  Bible  to  be, 
in  a  peculiar  sense,  a  consistent  organic  whole,  and  that,  in 
relation  to  moral  and  spiritual  truths,  and  more  especially  in 
relation  to  the  central  truth  which  he  seeks  to  enforce,  the 
writers  were  guarded  from  error  by  the  superintendence  of  a 
practically  effective  inspiration.  He  uses  the  Gospels  as 
perfectly  trustworthy  and  minutely  accurate  records  of 
Christ's  sayings ;  and,  in  commenting  on  the  Acts  and  Epis 
tles,  takes  for  granted  he  may  ascribe  to  language,  which  will 
bear  more  than  one  meaning,  the  precis-e  significance,  the 
extreme  pregnancy,  and  the  dogmatic  definiteness,  which  the 
Creeds  of  later  times  demand.  This  method  is,  no  doubt, 
very  convenient,  perhaps  indispensable,  in  orthodox  Protest 
ant  exegesis;  but,  after  all,  no  adjustment  of  theory  respecting 
the  unity,  continuity,  and  infallibility  of  the  revealed  written 
deposit,  can  establish  the  right  to  interpret  that  deposit  un 
reasonably.  The  difficulties  of  the  Nicene  and  Athanasian 
theologies  can  never  be  materially  lessened,  so  long  as  the 
sense  of  Scripture  is  supposed  to  lie  open  to  the  intellect  and 
conscience  of  individuals.  And,  measured  by  rational  criti 
cism,  the  assumptions  to  wrhich  Mr.  Liddon  resorts  are  made 
in  the  face  of  facts  too  palpable  to  be  ignored.  The  origin 
of  all  the  Gospels  is  wrapt  in  obscurity.  The  New  Testament 
Epistles,  though  they  may  betray  reminiscences  of  sayings 
which  the  Evangelists  have  preserved,  contain  no  quotations 


ORIGIN    AND    PURITY    OF    THE   GOSPELS.  43 

from  the  Gospels,  and  do  not  in  any  way  assert  or  recognize 
their  existence.  "While  oral  testimony  was  a  fresh  and  living 
voice,  they  were  not  called  for,  and  we  have  no  pretence  for 
fancying  they  appeared  until  the  apostolic  generation  had 
nearly  died  out.  And  they  were  not  at  once  exalted  to  the 
rank  accorded  to  the  earlier  Scriptures.  Though  honorably 
distinguished  from  inferior  and  less  truthful  records,  they  did 
not  reach  otherwise  than  by  a  gradual  progress,  extending 
over  at  least  a  hundred  years,  the  high  place  and  authority 
which  we  find  conceded  to  them  in  the  third  and  following 
centuries.  And  if  we  had  unimpeachable  evidence  of  their 
genuineness,  and  could  be  sure  they  were  originally  written 
by  the  men  whose  names  they  bear,  we  should  still  have  to 
consider  the  phenomena  they^  present,  —  the  patches  of  ver 
bal  identity  in  the  first  three;  their  want  of  connected  and 
orderly  arrangement ;  their  superficial  differences,  resulting 
from  omissions  and  slight  variations,  which  are  not  incompat 
ible  with  historical  fidelity ;  and  their  marked  discrepancies, 
which  cannot  be  reconciled.  We  are  not,  moreover,  able  to 
deny  the  possibility  and  probability  of  changes,  interpolations, 
and  additions  in  the  course  of  transcription  and  transmission  ; 
and  we  cannot  be  justified  in  assuming  we  have  correct 
accounts  of  all  events,  and  correct  reports  of  all  discourses.* 
There  was,  unquestionably,  an  interval  of  transition  from 
an  oral  and  traditional  to  a  written  Gospel,  and  the  latter 

*  "From  the  third  century  we  have  the  confirming  testimony  of  Ori- 
gen  respecting  the  ivilftd  falsifications  of  Scripture.  He  writes  that  the 
difference  of  the  text  in  the  various  copies  of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel  was 
caused  '  either  by  the  carelessness  of  copyists,  or  by  the  malicious  boldness 
of  the  correcting  writers,  or  of  those  who  have  added  or  taken  airai/.'  If 
Origen  had  written  this  about  Luke's  Gospel,  he  might  possibly  be  sup 
posed  to  refer  to  Marcion's  counterfeit  of  the  same.  As  it  is,  Origen 
admits  that  different  versions  of  Matthew's  Gospel  were,  even  in  the 
third  century,  in  circulation,  and  that  they  originated  partly  in  the  activ 
ity  of  malicious  gospel  forgers.  In  the  end  of  the  fourth  century,  Jerome 
writes  the  same  thing  in  other  words  about  the  Latin  translation,  and  he 
adds,  'There  are  as  many  texts  as  manuscripts.' "  —  E.  DE  BUNSEN'S 
Hidden  Wisdom  of  Christ,  vol.  ii.  p.  109. 

No  extant  manuscript  of  the  New  Testament  can  be  dated  earlier  than 
the  middle  of  the  fourth  century. 


44  THE   FOURTH   GOSPEL. 

rose  in  estimation  as  the  advantages  of  it  were  increasingly 
felt.  At  the  most  inauspicious  time,  therefore,  a  time  of 
seething  mental  commotion,  and  ill-regulated  enthusiasm, 
when  writings  misnamed  Evangelical  and  Apostolic  were 
produced,  our  Gospels  were  neither  tested  by  the  vigilant 
criticism,  nor  protected  by  the  jealous  custody,  which  subse 
quent  veneration  too  tardily  secured.  Apart  from  the  postu 
late  of  a  supernatural  guidance  within  the  Church,  in  all  that 
related  to  the  faith,  we  have  no  reason  to  think  highly  of  the 
capacity  for  weighing  evidence,  possessed  by  Christians  who 
lived  between  the  middle  of  the  second  and  the  end  of  the 
third  centuries.  We  should  be  careful  not  unduly  to  depre 
ciate  their  acquirements,  and  their  interest  in  truth;  but, 
knowing  from  their  writings^  something  of  their  style  of 
thought,  their  methods  of  illustration,  and  the  extent  to 
which  they  gave  the  rein  to  a  credulous  fancy,  we  cannot 
honestly  say  they  were  the  men  wisely  to  reduce  swollen 
traditions,  or  rectify  corrupted  texts.  Looking  at  the  whole 
subject  from  the  Protestant  pathway  of  historical  research, 
the  utmost  we  can  reasonably  assert  respecting  the  Synop 
tical  Gospels  is,  they  are  in  the  main  trustworthy,  and  sub 
stantially  true. 

In  relation  to  the  Fourth  Gospel,  there  are  peculiar  and 
almost  overwhelming  difficulties  to  be  encountered  by  the 
free  investigator.  Mr.  Liddon  struggles  to  show,  not  I  think 
with  success,  the  existence  of  external  evidence  decisively 
favoring  St.  John's  authorship.  He  appears  to  forget  that 
the  Apostolic  Fathers  do  not  invoke  the  Logos  doctrine  to 
explain  the  nature  of  Christ.  When  he  affirms :  "  In  their 
writings  there  are  large  districts  of  thought  and  expression, 
of  a  type  unmistakably  Johannean "  (p.  214),  he  uses  the 
language  of  exaggeration,  and  also  appeals  to  treatises  of 
doubtful  genuineness,  and  undoubtedly  adulterated  text. 
"  St.  Ignatius's  allusion  to  St.  John  in  his  Letter  to  the  Ro 
mans  "  (chap.  7)  is,  according  to  the  Syriac  version  (which, 
if  the  Epistle  is  genuine,  probably  represents  its  original  form 
more  nearly  than  the  Greek  text)  :  "  I  seek  the  bread  of  God 


IGNATIAN    AND    JUSTINIAN    CITATIONS.  45 

which  is  the  flesh  of  Jesus  Christ ;  and  I  seek  His  blood,  a 
drink  which  is  love  incorruptible."  But  the  Ignatian  Epis 
tles,  if  authentic,  would  not  help  to  sustain  the  doctrine  of 
Christ's  Deity,  and  their  authenticity  in  any  shape  is  exceed 
ingly  doubtful.  A  well-informed  critic  in  the  "  Athenaeum  " 
(Jan.  19,  1867)  writes:  "The  discussions  of  Baur,  Hilgen- 
field,  Lipsius,  Merx,  Denzinger,  Diisterdieck,  &c.,  present  the 
most  recent  arguments,  the  result  of  which  is,  that  neither 
the  Syriac  nor  the  Greek  Epistles  are  authentic." 

"  Justin's  emphatic  reference  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Logos 
to  our  Lord,  not  to  mention  his  quotation  of  John  the  Bap 
tist's  reply  to  the  messengers  of  the  Jews  "  (the  bare  words, 
I  am  not  the  Christ],  "and  of  our  Saviour's  language  about 
the  new  birth,"  does  not  "  make  his  knowledge  of  St.  John's 
Gospel  much  more  than  a  probability."  The  matter  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel  stands  aside  from  the  common  oral  tradition, 
which  was  embodied  in,  and  for  a  while  survived,  concurrently 
with  the  other  three  ;  and  therefore  a  reason  existed  for 
mentioning  St.  John  by  name,  which  did  not  exist  for  men 
tioning  the  other  three  Evangelists.  The  particular  form  of 
Justin's  doctrine,  also,  supplied  him  with  weighty  motives 
for  using  the  statements  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  and  bringing 
forward,  if  he  felt  he  could  bring  forward,  the  name  and 
authority  of  the  Apostle  St.  John ;  and  his  omitting  to  do 
so  is  made  the  more  prominent  by  his  express  mention  of  "  a 
certain  man  whose  name  was  John,  one  of  the  Apostles  of 
Christ,"  as  the  author  of.  the  Apocalypse. 

The  supposed  citations  in  Justin  and  other  writers  are 
very  inadequate  vouchers  that,  before  the  middle  of  the  sec 
ond  century,  the  Fourth  Gospel  was  known  and  accepted  as 
the  work  of  an  Apostle.  It  is  the  merest  assumption  to  call 
verbal  scraps  quotations  from  St.  John,  when  St.  John  is  not 
named,  and  when  it  is  notorious  that,  through  the  influence 
of  the  writings  of  Philo,  the  Logos  doctrine  was  familiar  to 
educated  Jews,  and  also  that  traditionary  retentions  and 
early  records  of  Christ's  life  and  sayings  were  in  circulation 
which  were  very  likely  to  contain  and  give  currency  to  some 


46  HIPPOLYTUS    AND    BASILIDES. 

of  the  sentences  wrought  up  into  the  Fourth  Gospel.  That 
Gospel  preserves  sayings  worthy  of  the  Christ  of  the  Syn- 
optists,  and  not  fairly  ascribable  to  mere  invention.  The 
better  and  more  veracious  of  floating  materials,  whether 
documentary  or  oral,  would  naturally  be  selected  by  the 
Evangelist,  and  would  in  his  narrative  survive  in  a  fixed  and 
authoritative  form.  It  would  be  no  less  unwise  to  argue  — 
none  of  his  distinctive  matter  has  a  good  foundation  in  his 
torical  truth  —  than  to  argue,  the  whole  must  be  accepted 
because  portions  commend  themselves  as  authentic.  But  the 
extreme  insufficiency  of  the  indirect,  fragmentary  testimonies, 
which  are  imagined  to  reveal  the  presence  of  the  Gospel  in 
the  former  half  of  the  second  century,  must  strike  every 
unprejudiced  inquirer  who  examines  them,  even  as  they  are 
exhibited  by  those  who  believe  in  their  validity.  A  passage 
from  the  treatise  of  Hippolytus,  "  Refutation  of  all  Heresies," 
is  often  adduced  to  show  that  Basilides  (about  A.D.  125)  used 
the  "  Gospel  according  to  John."  But  exactness  in  allusions 
to  the  writings  of  his  predecessors  is  not  among  the  merits 
of  Hippolytus,  and  it  is  very  far  from  being  clear  whether 
the  reference  is  to  Basilides  and  his  followers  in  a  succeeding 
generation,  or  to  Basilides  alone.  The  language  admits 
both  constructions.  The  context  rather  favors  the  supposi 
tion  Hippolytus  was  thinking  of  the  Basilidian  school  col 
lectively,  down  to  his  own  day ;  and,  as  the  case  stands, 
nothing  more  decisive  than  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Liddon  and 
consentients,  as  against  that  of  equally  good  judges,  is  con 
tained  in  the  stanch  assertion  :  "  It  is  certain  from  St.  Hip 
polytus  that  Basilides  appealed  to  texts  of  St.  John  in  favor 
of  his  system"  (p.  216).*  The  real  evidence  for  the  Apos 
tolic  authorship  of  the  latest  Gospel  begins  after  A.D.  150. 

*  The  passage  on  which  Mr.  Liddon  and  others  have  built  is  in  the 
"  Refutation  of  Heresies/'  vii.  22,  and  their  inference  turns  on  a  presumed 
exactness  in  the  use  of  the  singular  verb  ^r/al  (he  says).  But  Hippolytus 
often  uses  tyr)ai  to  indicate  an  unnamed  representative  of  the  sect  referred 
to,  or,  perhaps,  the  sect  regarded  as  professing  a  particular  opinion.  The 
late  Mr.  J.  J.  Tayler  on  "  The  Fourth  Gospel "  remarks  :  "  In  vii.  20, 
Hippolytus  mentions  Basilides,  and  Isidore  his  son,  and  the  whole  troop 


DID    JUSTIN   USE    THIS   GOSPEL  ?  47 

With  regard  to  Justin's  "  knowledge,"  very  competent  and 
impartial  recent  investigators,  who  approach  the  subject 
from  different  sides,  concur  in  judging:  "There  is  no  good 
proof  that  Justin  used  the  Gospel  of  John.  All  that  can  be 
appealed  to  is  the  similarity  of  some  of  Justin's  expressions 
to  those  of  John  "  (Donaldson's  Critical  History  of  Chris 
tian  ^Literature  and  Doctrine,  &c.,  vol.  ii.  p.  331).  This 
conclusion  of  Dr.  Donaldson  is  shared  by  the  late  Mr.  J.  J. 
Tayler,  in  his  work  on  "  The  Fourth  Gospel ;  "  and  also  by  Mr. 
Ernest  De  Bunsen  (Hidden  Wisdom,  <fcc.,  vol.  ii.  p.  103), 
who  holds  that  the  Gospel  in  question  had  its  origin  with  St. 
John,  but  "  was  not  published  till  an  advanced  period  in  the 
second  century."  Dr.  Davidson,  after  closely  reviewing  the 
evidence,  concludes  :  "  The  result  of  our  inquiry  into  Jus 
tin's  writings  is,  that  his  use  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  not 
proved"  (Introduction  to  New  Testament,  vol.  ii.  p.  387). 
Mr.  Westcott's  individual  persuasion,  and  the  persuasion  he 
is  anxious  to  impart,  is,  doubtless,  that  Justin  Martyr  was 
acquainted  with  the  four  Canonical  Gospels;  but  his > percep 
tion  of  the  force  of  evidence  saves  him  from  the  overween 
ing  confidence  indulged  by  Mr.  Liddon.  In  treating  the 
precise  question,  "How  far  Justin  witnesses  to  St.  John's 

of  these,  and  then  cites  them  collectively  through  the  whole  of  the  follow 
ing  paragraph,  by  the  word  fyrjoi.  Nor  is  this  the  only  instance.  In  vi. 
29,  speaking  of  Valentinus,  Heracleon,  Ptolemy,  and  all  the  scltool  of  these, 
he  quotes  the  opinion  of  the  school  by  the  singular  verb  pr/ai.  It  is  sur 
prising  that  so  great  a  scholar  as  Baron  Bunsen  should  have  laid  all  this 
stress  on  so  small  a  matter.  It  says  (<p?i<7i)  is  the  familiar  mode  of  citing 
the  doctrines  of  a  particular  school,  whether  represented  by  many  writers 
or  by  one.  Scripture,  notwithstanding  its  multifarious  contents  and 
numerous  authors,  is  constantly  quoted  by  writers  of  the  second  century 
in  this  form."  (See,  also,  to  the  same  effect,  Dr.  Davidson's  "  Introduc 
tion  to  New  Testament,"  vol.  ii.  pp.  388-93.) 

Mr.  David  Rowland  on  "  The  Apostolic  Origin  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  " 
(Longmans)  calls  Mr.  Tayler's  argument  '•  a  feeble  objection,"  and  ex 
hibits  it  by  citing  oalij  some  comparatively  unimportant  observations 
which  introduce  the  sentences  I  have  quoted.  Mr.  Rowland's  Essay 
purports  to  submit  the  topic  he  discusses  "  to  an  examination  of  the  kind 
which  courts  of  law  employ  in  investigating  rights  or  titles  to  property 
dependent  on  ancient  traditional  and  documentary  evidence." 


48  CANON   OF   MURATORI. 

Gospel  ?  "  -he  says  :  "  His  references  to  St.  John  are  uncer 
tain  ;  but  this  follows  from,  the  character  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel.  It  was  unlikely  that  he  should  quote  its  peculiar 
teaching  in  apologetic  writings  addressed  to  Jews  and 
heathens"  (Westcott,  Canon  of  New  Testament,  p.  201, 
1st  Ed.). 

Mr.  Liddon  appeals  to  a  Catalogue  of  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament,  purporting  to  belong  to  the  latter  half  of 
the  second  century,  and  known  as  the  Canon  of  Muratori, 
but  he  does  not  reproduce  the  information  on  which  he  builds. 
"  At  Rome,  St.  John's  Gospel  was  certainly  received  as  being 
the  w^ork  of  that  Apostle,  in  the  year  170.  This  is  clear 
from  the  so-termed  Muratorian  fragment"  (p.  212).  The 
fragment  ascribes  the  Fourth  Gospel  to  "John,  one  of  the 
Disciples,"  and  gives  an  account  of  the  causes  which  led  to 
its  production.  "At  the  entreaties  of  his  fellow  disciples 
and  bishops,  John  said,  '  Fast  with  me  three  days  from  to 
day,  and  whatever  shall  be  revealed  to  each  of  us,  whether 
it  be  favorable  to  my  writing  or  not,  let  us  relate  it  to  one 
another.'  On  the  same  night  it  was  revealed  to  Andrew, 
one  of  the  Apostles,  that  John  should  —  the  rest  revising 
(recognoscentibus  cunctis)  —  relate  all  things  in  his  own  name. 
And  so,  although  differing  elements  (principia)  are  taught 
in  the  several  books  of  the  Evangelists,  yet  there  is  no  dif 
ference  in  the  faith  of  believers,  since  in  all  the  books  all 
things  are  set  forth  by  one  and  the  same  directing  Spirit." 
Now,  this  story  has  a  suspiciously  defensive  and  explanatory 
look.  Its  attempt  to  throw  around  the  Gospel  the  special 
sanction  of  divinely  suggested  origin  rather  implies  the  Gos 
pel's  apostolicity  was  not  a  well-attested  and  accepted  fact, 
but  viewed  with  doubts  and  hesitancy. 

In  concluding  his  undaunted,  but  very  one-sided  argument 
on  the  external  witness  which  he  supposes  to  prove  "  the 
Fourth  Gospel  certainly  St.  John's,"  Mr.  Liddon  jubilantly 
writes  (p.  218)  :  — 

"Ewald  shall  supply  the  words  with  which  to  close  the 
foregoing  considerations.  '  Those  who,  since  the  first  dis- 


49 

cusskm  of  this  question  have  been  really  conversant  with  it, 
never  could  have  had,  and  never  have  had  a  moment's  doubt. 
As  the  attack  on  St.  John  has  become  fiercer  and  fiercer, 
the  truth  during  the  last  ten  or  twelve  years  has  been  more 
and  more  solidly  established,  error  has  been  pursued  into 
its  last  hiding-places;  and  at  this  moment  the  facts  before  us 
are  such,  that  no  man,  who  does  not  will  knowingly  to  choose 
error  and  to  reject  truth,  can  dare  to  say  that  the  Fourth 
Gospel  is  not  the  work  of  the  Apostle  John.'  "  The  fervor, 
modesty,  and  sweetness  of  this  deliverance  will  have  their 
reward  in  the  applauding  sympathy  of  orthodox  Protestants. 
Ewald,  however,  has  not,  on  many  topics,  the  good  fortune 
to  coincide  with  Mr.  Liddon,  and  the  latter  complains  (p. 
15)  :  "Ewald  may  see  in  Christ  the  altogether  human  source 
of  the  highest  spiritual  life  of  humanity ; "  and  again  (Notes, 
p.  505)  :  « Ewald's  defence  of  St.  John's  Gospel,  and  his 
deeper  spirituality  of  tone,  must  command  a  religious  inter 
est,  which  would  be  of  a  high  order  if  only  this  writer 
believed  in  our  Lord's  Godhead."  But  where  the  great 
German  elucidator  of  the  Old  Testament  does  retain  a  mor 
sel  of  orthodoxy,  his  dictum  is  triumphantly  conclusive  ! 
Those  who  know  his  history  will  perhaps  be  disposed  to 
wonder  more  at  his  having  travelled  so  far  in  the  paths  of 
Rationalism,  than  at  his  having,  in  advanced  age,  stopped 
short  of  some  conclusions  wrhich  seem  inevitable  to  younger 
men  of  his  own  school.  If  he  is  to  be  made  a  judge  on 
questions  connected  with  the  New  Testament,  let  his  failure 
to  discover  Christ's  true  Deity  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  be  bal 
anced  against  his  success  in  convincing  himself  the  Fourth 
Gospel  is  a  work  of  St.  John. 

But,  as  will  be  confessed  on  both  sides,  the  controversy 
hangs  more  upon  internal  than  upon  external  evidences.  If 
the  fourth  did  not  differ  from  the  earlier  Gospels  more  than 
they  differ  from  each  other,  the  external  credentials  might 
pass  unchallenged,  not  because  they  would  amount  to  proof, 
but  because,  in  favor  of  probabilities,  comparatively  slight 
testimony  is  required.  The  differences  between  the  Fourth 

4 


50  WESTCOTT'S  AND  TAYLER'S  OPINIONS. 

Gospel  and  its  predecessors  are,  however,  differences  of  strik 
ing  contrast  and  wide  divergency.  The  most  able  English 
champion  of  traditional  views  concerning  the  New  Testa 
ment  Canon  assures  us :  "  It  is  impossible  to  pass  from  the 
Synoptic  Gospels  to  that  of  St.  John  without  feeling  that 
the  transition  involves  the  passage  from  one  world  of  thought 
to  another.  No  familiarity  with  the  general  teaching  of  the 
Gospels,  no  wide  conception  of  the  character  of  the  Saviour, 
is  sufficient  to  destroy  the  contrast  which  exists  in  form 
and  spirit  between  the  earlier  and  the  later  narratives ;  and 
a  full  recognition  of  this  contrast  is  the  first  requisite  for  the 
understanding  of  their  essential  harmony"  (Westcott's  In 
troduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Gospels,  p.  231).  The  full 
recognition  which  Mr.  "Westcott  recommends  cannot  be  at 
tempted  here.  It  is  enough  to  remark,  not  only  are  the  mysti 
cism  and  obscurity  which  characterize  many  of  the  discourses 
in  the  Fourth  Gospel  utterly  unlike  the  general  simplicity 
and  clearness  of  the  sayings  recorded  in  the  preceding  three, 
but  there  are  also  contradictions  as  to  plain  matters  of  feet, 
—  contradictions  which  refuse  to  be  reduced  into  superficial 
differences,  or  varieties  of  detail.  "  One  form  of  narrative 
excludes  the  other.  If  the  first  three  Gospels  represent 
Christ's  public  ministry  truly,  the  fourth  cannot  be  accepted 
as  simple  reliable  history.  If  we  assume  the  truth  of  the 
fourth,  we  must  reject,  on  some  fundamental  points,  the  evi 
dence  of  the  first  three "  (Tayler  On  the  Fourth  G-ospel, 
p.  7).* 

Mr.  Liddon  contends  :  "  St.  John's  Gospel  is  an  historical 
supplement,  and  a  polemical  treatise  addressed  to  an  intellect 
ual  world  widely  different  from  that  which  had  been  before 

*  Similarly,  Dr.  Schenkel :  "  If  the  synoptic  representation  of  the 
evangelical  history  be  the  correct  one,  then  that  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  is 
not  correct,  and  vice  versa." 

Dr.  Davidson,  "  Theological  Review,"  July,  1870,  supplementing  the 
discussion  in  the  second  volume  of  his  "  Introduction  to  the  New  Testa 
ment,"  exposes  the  worthlessness  of  Irenseus's  testimony,  and  the  decided 
untruth  of  the  conjecture  :  "  Irenaeus  attests  the  authenticity  of  the 
Gospel  out  of  the  tradition  of  Polycarp." 


INTERNAL   EVIDENCE.  51 

the  minds  of  the  earlier  Evangelists."  He  also  admits  :  "  St. 
John's  translation  of  the  actual  words  of  Jesus  may  be 
colored  by  a  phraseology  current  in  the  school  which  he  is 
addressing,  sufficiently  to  make  them  popularly  intelligible. 
But  the  peculiarities  of  his  language  have  been  greatly  ex 
aggeratedly  criticism,  while  they  are  naturally  explained 
by  the  polemical  and  positively  doctrinal  objects  which  he 
had  in  view"  (p.  223).  The  explanation  is  not  to  the  pur 
pose,  and  the  admission  is  damaging.  Two  conflicting  ver 
sions  of  the  same  events  cannot  both  be  truthful ;  and,  in 
relation  to  the  discourses,  the  Evangelist  is  not  supposed  to  be 
the  composer,  but  the  reporter.  The  explanation  required  is 
that  our  Lord  himself  addressed  widely  different  intellectual 
worlds,  and  in  consequence  employed  totally  distinct  styles 
of  thought  and  diction.  Will  Mr.  Liddon  venture  to  offer 
this  explanation  ?  The  supplementary  theory,  and  reasons 
drawn  from  the  purpose  of  the  Evangelist,  do  not  relieve  the 
difficulty  involved  in  the  fact  of  the  Fourth  Gospel's  having 
so  little  in  agreement,  so  much  in  contrast,  with  its  prede 
cessors.  And  the  theory  itself  seriously  disparages  the  credit 
of  the  Synoptists.  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke  may  reason 
ably  be  presumed  to  have  intended  to  proclaim  the  gospel  in 
its  connection  with  Christ's  life  and  teaching,  and  to  have 
given  us  what,  in  their  judgment,  was  a  true  and  sufficient 
presentation  of  Christ's  words  and  works.  But  what  must 
we  think  of  their  knowledge,  memory,  and  spiritual  discern 
ment,  when  they  could  all  omit  such  materials  as  the  fourth 
Evangelist  brings  together?  What  was  the  character  of 
their  inspiration,  and  what  share  had  they  in  the  promise  their 
successor  records :  "  The  Holy  Ghost  shall  teach  you  all 
things,  and  bring  all  things  to  your  remembrance,  whatsoever 
I  haye  said  unto  you  "  ?  Does  Mr.  Liddon  consider  the  Xew 
Testament  narratives  to  furnish  a  complete  Gospel,  exclud 
ing  what  he  believes  to  be  the  testimony  of  St.  John  ? 
Could  he,  without  the  Fourth  Gospel,  prove,  even  to  his  own 
satisfaction,  that  the  doctrine  his  "Bampton  Lectures  "  were 
written  to  maintain  has  any  foundation  in  our  Lord's  teach- 


52  THE   SUPPLEMENTARY   THEORY. 

ing  ?  The  supplementary  theory,  therefore,  evidently  impairs 
the  credit  of  those  who,  while  they  proclaimed  the  gospel  of 
Christ,  could,  singly  and  collectively,  leave  room  and  occasion 
for  such  a  supplement.  The  hard  pressure  of  facts,  which 
Mr.  Liddon  seems  unable  duly  to  appreciate,  is  keenly  felt  by 
a  theologian  who  is  in  no  qualification,  except  the  graces  of 
style,  his  inferior.  Mr.  De  Bunsen  labors,  with  much  thought 
and  learning,  to  assign  "  a  satisfactory  reason  for  the  mysteri 
ous  fact,  that  the  first  three  Evangelists  have  evidently  agreed 
not  to  refer  to  any  of  those  important  sayings  of  Christ 
which  have  been  recorded  only  by  the  Beloved  Apostle  " 
(Hidden  Wisdom,  Preface).  But  he  does  not  withhold  the 
confession :  "  Truly  lamentable  is  the  fact  that  the  tradition 
of  the  Roman  Church  has  not  made  known  to  tfye  world 
under  what  circumstances  the  first  and  incomplete  evangelic 
record  of  Matthew  was  written,  and  why  it  had  to  be  fol 
lowed,  first  by  the  Paulinic  Gospel  after  Luke,  then  by  the 
more  compromising  Gospel  after  Mark,  and  finally  by  the 
uncompromising  Gospel  after  John.  The  Roman  Church 
need  not  have  dreaded  the  consequences  of  making  known 
to  the  world  that  the  gradual  revelation  of  pure  Christianity 
was  a  work  of  almost  a  century"  (Hidden  Wisdom,  &c., 
vol.  ii.  p.  113). 

Mr.  De  Bunsen  must  be  allowed  to  have  lightened  some 
difficulties;  but,  after  all  his  efforts,  his  conclusion  has  to  be 
expressed  in  terms  of  compromise. 

"  We  may  therefore  firmly  believe  that  the  Apostle  John 
has  recorded  the  secret  and  hidden  sayings  of  Christ,  and 
that  during,  or  after,  the  Apostle's  lifetime,  one  or  more  of 
John's  personal  friends  faithfully  embodied  the  apostolic 
record  into  the  Gospel  '  after '  John,  which  the  editors  com 
posed  in  the  form  we  possess  it,  and  not  without  especial 
reference  to  the  state  of  the  Church  towards  the  end  of  the 
second  century"  (vol.  ii.  p.  328). 

The  embarrassments,  which  an  examination  of  the  contents 
of  the  latest  Canonical  Gospel  throws  in  the  way  of  its  recep 
tion  as  a  work  of  St.  John,  are  increased  by  the  broad  differ- 


EFFECT   OF   PRECONCEPTIONS.  58 

ences  distinguishing  its  style  and  spirit  from  those  of  the 
Apocalypse.  When  the  two  documents  are  carefully  com 
pared,  it  is  very  hard  indeed  to  avoid  inferring  both  have 
not  the  same  author.  It  is  also  noteworthy  that,  in  the 
Apocalypse,  the  writer  frequently  refers  to  himself  by  name, 
while  in  the  Gospel  there  is  no  direct  statement  of  authorship 
except  in  the  chapter  which  is  generally  admitted  to  be  a  sub 
sequent  addition.  The  35th  verse  of  chap,  xix.,  so  far  from 
distinctly  suggesting  the  writer  was  an  Apostle,  or  an  eye 
witness  of  what  he  relates,  rather  indicates  he  was  not  himself 
an  eye-witness,  but  relied  on  the  testimony  of  one  who  was. 

After  a  recognition  of  the  peculiarities  *  in  form  and  sub 
stance  wrhich  put  the  Fourth  Gospel  so  widely  out  of 
agreement  with  its  predecessors,  suspicion  becomes  almost 
inevitable,  that  the  promise  ascribed  to  Christ  (xiv.  26)  is  an 
anticipatory  explanation  and  apology  for  the  production  of 
matter  so  distinct  from  what  the  common  oral  tradition,  and 
the  existing  written  memoirs,  embraced. 

The  spiritual  depth  and  beauty  which  have  been  discerned 
in  the  Fourth  Gospel  are  sometimes  thought  to  attest  its 
truthfulness  and  apostolic  origin ;  but  there  can  be  no  doubt 
our  estimate  of  its  contents  is,  in  a  very  great  degree,  shaped 
and  colored  by  our  foregone  conclusions.  Intellectual  criti 
cism  and  clear-sighted  moral  perception  are  not  possible 
while  we  are  persuaded  we  have  before  our  eyes  the  very 
words  of  God  Himself,  preserved  in  the  narrative  of  an  his 
torian  infallibly  inspired.  Reason  may  ingeniously  expound 
and  defend,  but  can  never  fairly  investigate  discourses  and 
narratives  which  are  believed  to  have  such  overwhelmingly 
awful  sanctions.  The  preconception  puts  intelligence  out  of 
the  field,  for  all  but  defensive  and  laudatory  purposes.  But 
if  the  controversy  respecting  the  inspiration  of  Scripture, 
and  the  authorship  of  our  latest  Gospel,  issues  in  disburdening 

*  Peculiarities  are,  of  course,  not  all  or  necessarily  discrepancies  ;  but 
Mr.  Westcott  adopts  the  calculation  that,  "  if  the  total  contents  of  the 
several  Gospels  be  represented  by  100,  there  are  in  St.  John's  92  peculi 
arities  and  8  concordances."  —  Introduction,  &c.,  p.  177. 


54  UNSOUNDNESS   OF   MR.   LIDDON'S 

men's  minds  from  the  supposition  that  St.  John,  under  the 
guidance  of  a  plenary  inspiration,  has  recorded  with  minute 
accuracy  the  very  words  of  Christ,  a  widely  different  judg 
ment  will  probably  be  arrived  at  as  to  some  portions  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel ;  and  passages  from  which  it  is  next  to  impos 
sible  to  elicit  any  clear  consistent  sense  will  no  longer  be 
pronounced  profoundly  spiritual  and  full  of  beauty.  Disturb 
ance  of  rooted  opinions  on  this  subject  is,  as  clerical  inquir 
ers  learn  from  experience,  peculiarly  distressing,  but,  in  the 
order  of  Divine  Providence,  abstinence  from  inquiry  would 
appear  to  be  the  condition  of  Protestant  continuance  in  the 
orthodox  faith.  Whatever  the  meaning  of  the  fact  may  be, 
application  of  individual  intellect  and  research  does  not 
bring  peace  and  contentment  to  the  holder  of  traditional 
dogmas.  But,  upon  all  questions  touching  the  formation  of 
the  Canon,  and  the  authorship  and  meaning  of  the  Canonical 
Books,  orthodox  men  may  secure  repose  of  mind,  without 
immediate  diminution  of  practical  piety,  by  abnegation  of 
reason,  and  by  trust  in  the  Church. 

The  considerations  to  which  I  have  briefly  drawn  attention 
will  suffice  to  show  that,  in  assuming  the  Gospels,  and  more 
especially  the  last  of  them,  to  furnish  verbally  correct  accounts 
of  Christ's  sayings,  Mr.  Liddon  has  followed  a  method  whose 
radical  unsoundness  vitiates  all  his  reasonings.  With  the 
essentially  Protestant  and  rational  criticism,  by  which  time- 
honored  assumptions  about  the  Bible  have  been  besieged  and 
curtailed,  he  makes  only  a  semblance  of  grappling.  He  nei 
ther  screens  his  conceptions  of  the  Bible  behind  the  par 
amount  authority  of  the  Church,  nor  vindicates  them  from 
the  fundamental  objections  to  which  free  inquiry  gives  rise. 
But  if  the  faults  of  his  method  are  not  insisted  upon,  and 
the  broader  results  of  modern  investigation  and  historical 
criticism  are  not  urged  against  him,  other  ground  remains  on 
which  his  conclusions  may  be  combated.  The  dogma  for 
which  he  argues  so  impetuously  is  eminently  a  question 
of  interpretation;  and  if  that  dogma  is  really  deducible  from 
the  Bible  by  individual  judgment,  it  must  be  deducible  by 


CRITICISM    AND    EXEGESIS.  55 

just  and  reasonable,  and  not  by  arbitrary  and  irrational, 
expositions.  A  review  of  the  leading  features  in  his  argu 
ment  will,  I  believe,  prove  pretty  conclusively  that  Mr. 
Liddon  does  not  find  his  doctrine  in  Scripture,  but  puts  it 
there,  sometimes  by  contravening  the  clear  sense,  and  more 
often  by  impregnating  vague  phrases,  straining  figurative  ex 
pressions,  and  misunderstanding  obscure  texts.  He  cannot, 
I  know,  be  charged  with  originating  his  expositions.  But  he 
rejoices  to  inherit,  accept,  and  deliberately  reiterate  a  string 
of  interpretations  full  of  the  worst  faults  with  which  any 
exegesis,  not  avowedly  either  irrational  or  super-rational,  can 
be  laden.  Brief  and  indecisive  words  are  laboriously  drawn 
upon ;  explicitness  is  cleverly  darkened  with  rapid  and  dis 
coloring  touches.  Contextual  settings,  the  scope  of  the  par 
ticular  Canonical  document  in  hand,  and  the  plain  general 
teaching  of  the  whole  Bible,  are  treated  as  if  they  did  not 
exist,  or  existed  only  to  be  curtly  explained  away.  Barely 
possible  senses  of  rare,  difficult,  and  arbitrarily  detached 
expressions  are  employed  to  override  and  transmute  the 
abundant  and  perspicuous  sentences,  which,  by  every  rule  of 
reason,  determine  the  probable  meaning  of  ambiguous  texts. 
Writers  and  speakers  are  understood  as  though  they  had 
written  and  spoken  in  jerks,  without  mental  continuity,  or 
firm  hold  of  the  momentous  conception  assumed  to  have  been 
presiding  and  influential ;  in  a  style,  in  short,  which  makes 
the  pages  of  the  New  Testament  swarm  with  psychological 
enigmas,  and  tempts  us  to  conclude  that  inspiration  involves, 
not  the  quickening  and  expansion,  but  the  restraint  and  con 
traction  of  our  intellectual  powers. 


CHAPTER   III. 

Supposed  intimations  in  the  Old  Testament  of  the  existence  of  a  Plu 
rality  of  Persons  within  the  One  Divine  Essence.  —  The  plural  form 
of  the  Name  of  God  (Elohim). —  Significance  of  the  Theophanies. — 
Imagined  Personality  of  the  Divine  Wisdom,  as  depicted  in  the 
Hebrew  Canonical  Books  and  the  Apocrypha.  —  The  Logos  of  Philo 
Judaeus,  and  the  probable  relation  of  Philo's  speculations  to  the 
Fourth  Gospel. -1- Periods  of  Messianic  Prophecy  in  the  Jewish 
Canon.  —  Supposed  evidence  for  Christ's  Deity  in  the  Psalms,  fsaiah, 
Jeremiah,  Hagyai,  Zechariah,  and  Malachi,  examined.  —  Reckless 
and  unwarranted  reference,  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Liddon,  to  Rabbinical 
literature. 

IN  the  plural  form  of  the  name  of  God  (Elohim),  and  in  the 
use,  a  few  times  repeated  in  the  earlier  chapters  of  Genesis, 
of  a  plural  verb,  &c.,  —  let  Us  make,  &c.;  like  one  of  Us; 
let  Us  go  down  (i.  26 ;  iii.  22 ;  xi.  7) ;  together  with  Isa.  vi. 
8,  Whom  shall  I  send,  and  who  will  go  for  Us?  —  Mr. 
Liddon  detects  "intimations  of  the  existence  of  a  Plurality 
of  Persons  within  the  One  Essence  of  God  ; "  intimations  all 
the  more  significant  because  the  Divine  Unity  was  so  funda 
mental  an  article  in  the  Hebrew  faith. 

The  answer,  with  respect  to  the  noun  Elohim,  is  that  it 
seems  to  have  remained  in  the  plural  from  remoter  times, 
because  the  Deity  was  contemplated  as  the  aggregate  of 
manifold  forces  and  powers,  and  as  combining  in  Himself  all 
the  energies  which  polytheism  had  distributed  among  the 
"  gods  many  "  of  the  heathen  world.  "  His  internal  resources 
were  regarded  as  infinite  and  yet  united.  It  is  with  reference 
to  such  multiplicity  of  the  manifestations  of  Divine  power, 
that  the  plural  Elohim  was  employed  by  monotheism" 
(Davidson's  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament,  vol.  i.  p. 
194). 


THE   ELOHIM-ARGUMENT.  57 

"  Whatever  the  names  of  the  Elohim  worshipped  by  the 
numerous  clans  of  his  race,  Abraham  saw  that  all  the  Elohim 
were  meant  for  God,  and  thus  Elohim,  comprehending  by 
one  name  every  thing  that  ever  had  been  or  could  be  called 
Divine,  became  the  name  with  which  the  monotheistic  age 
was  rightly  inaugurated,  —  a  plural  conceived  and  construed 
as  a  singular.  Jehovah  was  all  the  Elohim,  and  therefore 
there  could  be  no  other  God  "  (Max  Miiller :  Chips,  <#c.,  Essay 
on  Semitic  Monotheism). 

When  Elohim  is  used  in  its  plural  sense  to  denote  false 
gods,  the  verbs  and  adjectives  with  which  it  is  joined  are,  of 
course,  in  grammatical  concord,  but  the  very  great  majority 
of  the  numerous  instances  in  which  the  word  is  used  to  denote 
the  Almighty  have  the  verbs  in  the  singular,  and  there  is  an 
overwhelming  probability  on  the  side  of  the  conclusion  that 
the  stringent  monotheism  of  the*Jews  made  the  exceptional 
usage  unmeaning,  unless  with  relation  to  the  Almighty's 
attributes,  as  compared  with  the  conclusion  that  there  was 
in  it  any  hint  of  Personal  Distinctions  within  the  Being  of 
God.*  When  Mr.  Liddon  says  of  the  passages  in  Genesis 
above  referred  to,  "  In  such  sayings  it  is  clear  that  an  equality 
of  rank  is  distinctly  assumed  between  the  Speaker  and  Those 
Whom  He  is  addressing,"  he  promotes  neither  his  cause  nor 
his  reputation.  Any  explanation  of  these  forms  of  language 
is  more  admissible  than  an  explanation  which  the  Jews  would 
have  understood  to  contradict  the  grandly  distinctive  concep 
tion  of  their  theology.  Kings  when  speaking  of  themselves 
employ  the  plural  pronoun,  and  the  royal  usage  may  have 
been  transferred  to  the  King  of  kings. 

The  fancies  that  the  threefold  repetition  of  the  Divine 
Name  in  the  priestly  blessing  prescribed  in  the  Book  of  Num- 

*  Fuerst  (Heb.  Lex.}  says,  that,  "  after  the  earlier  period,  the  construc 
tion  with  the  plural  was  avoided  as  polytheistic."  It  is  noticeable,  also, 
that  the  Hebrew  poets  resuscitated  the  singular  Eloah.  The  plural 
usage  is,  in  none  of  its  aspects,  progressive,  but  the  reverse,  and  therefore 
could  have  had  no  share  in  conveying  a  doctrine  the  foreshadovvings  of 
which  are  presumed  to  have  become  more  frequent  and  definite  as  time 
went  on. 


58  THE   THEOPHANIES. 

bers  (vi.  23-26),  and  the  similar  repetition  of  the  word  Holy 
in  Isa.  vi.  3,  and  "  the  recurrence  of  a  Threefold  rhythm  of 
prayer  or  praise  in  the  Psalter,"  contain  significant  and  pre 
parative  adumbrations  of  "  the  Most  Holy  Three,  Who  yet 
are  One,"  —  are  sufficiently  refuted  by  being  mentioned.* 

From  these  subtile  linguistic  suggestions  of  Personal  Dis 
tinctions  within  the  Unity,  Mr.  Liddon  goes  on  "  to  consider 
that  series  of  remarkable  apparitions  which  are  commonly 
known  as  the  Theophanies,  and  which  form  so  prominent  a 
feature  in  the  early  history  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures." 
In  one  of  the  three  superhuman  Beings  who  came  to  Abra 
ham  in  human  shape,  and  partook  of  his  hospitality  (Gen. 
xviii.),  Mr.  Liddon,  guided  by  the  plain  meaning  of  the  text, 
recognizes  Jehovah,  and,  with  characteristic  acuteness  in  the 
manipulation  of  words,  adopts  the  observation  that,  "  when 
we  are  told  (xix.  24)  that  !  Jehovah  rained  upon  Sodom  and 
Gomorrah  brimstone  and  fire  from  Jehovah  out  of  heaven,'  a 
sharp  distinction  is  established  between  a  visible  and  an  In 
visible  Person,  each  bearing  the  Most  Holy  Name."  t  The 
mysterious  Being  who  wrestled  with  Jacob ;  "  the  Angel  of 
the  Lord ; "  "  the  Angel  of  God's  Presence ; "  "  the  Captain 
of  the  Lord's  Host;  "  "  the  Angel  of  God  who  refuses  to  dis 
close  to  Manoah  his  Name,  which  is  secret  or  wonderful ; "  — 
who  appear  in  the  Pentateuch  and  the  books  of  Joshua  and 
Judges,  are,  by  a  confiding  literal  acceptance  of  the  Scripture 
phraseology,  identified  with  special  apparitions .  of  Jehovah. 
"  The  Angel  of  Goal's  Presence  (Ex.  xxxiii.  14,  compare  with 
Isa,  Ixiii.  9)  fully  represents  God.  God  must  in  some  way 

*  It  must  be  confessed,  however,  in  this  species  of  interpretation  Mr. 
Liddon  has  been  surpassed.  "The  threefold  mention  of  the  Divine 
names,  and  the  plural  number  of  the  Word  translated  God  (Deut.  vi.  4), 
are  thought  by  many  to  be  a  plain  intimation  of  a  Trinity  of  Persons, 
even  in  this  express  declaration  of  the  unity  of  the  Godhead."  —  Relig 
ious  Tract  Society's  Commentary,  compiled  mainly  from  Henry  and  Scott. 

t  In  his  admirable  article  on  the  "Jewish  Messiah  "  (Theological  Re 
view,  January,  1870),  Dr.  Davidson  supplies  the  scholarly  and  common- 
sense  elucidation  :  "  Jehovah  rained  from  Jehovah  is  Hebraistic  for  the  Lord 
rained  from  Himself,  a  noun  being  used  for  a  pronoun." 


AUGUSTINE'S  EXPLANATION.  59 

have  been  present  in  Him.  No  merely  created  being,  speak 
ing  and  acting  in  his  own  right,  could  have  spoken  to  men, 
or  have  allowed  men  t6  act  towards  Himself,  as  did  the  Angel 
of  the  Lord"  (p.  54).  But  in  handling  the  precise  question, 
"  Who  was  this  Angel  ?  "  Mr.  Liddon  hesitates,  though  his 
opinion  seems  to  incline  towards  that  of  "the  earliest 
Fathers,  who  answer  with  general  unanimity  that  the  Angel 
was  the  Word  or  Son  of  God  himself."  But  an  Arian 
abuse  of  the  Theophanic  interpretation  prevalent  in  the 
Ante-Mcene  Church  produced  a  more  guarded  explanation, 
in  establishing  which  St.  Augustine  took  the  lead.  The  Arian 
reasoning  was :  The  Son  was  seen  by  the  Patriarchs,  the 
Father  was  not  seen ;  an  invisible  and  a  visible  nature  are 
not  one  and  the  same. 

"  St.  Augustine  boldly  faced  this  difficulty  by  insisting  upon 
the  Scriptural  truth  of  the  Invisibility  of  God  as  God.  The 
Son,  therefore,  as  being  truly  God,  was  by  nature  as  invisible 
as  the  Father.  If  the  Son  appeared  to  the  Patriarchs,  He 
appeared  through  the  intermediate  agency  of  a  created  being, 
who  represented  Him,  and  through  whom  He  spoke  and 
acted.  If  the  Angel  who  represented  Him  spoke  and  acted 
with  a  Divine  authority,  and  received  Divine  honors,  we  are 
referred  to  the  force  of  the  general  law  whereby,  in  things 
earthly  and  heavenly,  an  ambassador  is  temporarily  put  in 
the  place  of  the  Master  who  accredits  him.  .  .  .  The  general 
doctrine  of  this  great  teacher,  that  the  Theophanies  were  not 
direct  appearances  of  a  Person  in  the  Godhead,  but  Self- 
manifestations  of  God  through  a  created  being,  had  been 
hinted  at  by  some  earlier  Fathers,  and  was  insisted  on  by 
contemporary  and  later  writers  of  the  highest  authority" 
(pp.  56-58). 

Since  Augustine's  time  this  explanation  has  received  the 
predominant,  though  by  no  means  the  exclusive,  acceptance 
of  the  Church ;  and  Mr.  Liddon,  while  remarking,  "  it  is  not 
unaccompanied  by  considerable  difficulties  when  we  apply 
it  to  the  sacred  text,"  confesses  that  "  it  certainly  seems 
to  relieve  us  of  greater  embarrassments  than  any  which  it 


60  SUGGESTION   OF   CHRIST'S   DEITY. 

creates."  The  difficulties  are,  I  think,  very  manifest  when 
the  explanation  is  applied  to  the  accounts  in  the  xviii.  and 
xxxii.  chapters  of  Genesis.  The  writer  of  those  accounts 
does  identify  with  Jehovah  and  Elohim  the  mysterious  visi 
tant  who  ate  and  talked  with  Abraham,  and  wrestled  with 
Jacob,  and  he  gives  no  hint  he  imagined  himself  to  be  record 
ing  other  than  literal,  veritable  facts.  Our  intelligence,  and 
our  reverence  for  the  Almighty  and  Infinite  Spirit,  would 
forbid  us  to  think  as  the  writer  thought ;  but  have  intelli 
gence  and  reverence  any  claim  to  be  heard  against  the  state 
ments  of  a  narrative  divinely  inspired,  and  dealing  with  the 
very  topics  around  which  the  instructing  light  and  control 
ling  care  of  inspiration  more  especially  move,  —  the  miracles 
and  manifestations  of  God  ? 

But,  whatever  were  the  exact  form  and  nature  of  the  Old 
Testament  Theophanies,  they  have,  according  to  Mr.  Liddon, 
an  important  bearing  on  the  doctrine  of  our  Lord's  Divinity. 

"If  they  were  not,  as  has  been  pretended,  mythical  legends, 
the  natural  product  of  the  Jewish  mind  at  a  particular  stage 
of  its  development,  but  actual  matter-of-fact  occurrences  in 
the  history  of  ancient  Israel,  must  we  not  see  in  them  a  deep 
Providential  meaning  ?  Whether  in  them  the  Word  or  Son 
actually  appeared,  or  whether  God  made  a  created  angel  the 
absolutely  perfect  exponent  of  His  Thought  and  Will,  do 
they  not  point,  in  either  case,  to  a  purpose  in  the  Divine 
Mind,  which  would  only  be  realized  when  man  had  been 
admitted  to  a  nearer  and  more  palpable  contact  with  God 
than  was  possible  under  the  Patriarchal  or  Jewish  dispensa 
tions  ?  Do  they  not  suggest,  as  their  natural  climax  and 
explanation,  some  Personal  Self-unveiling  of  God  before  the 
eyes  of  His  creatures  ?  Would  not  God  appear  to  have  been 
training  His  people,  by  this  long  and  mysterious  series  of 
communications,  at  length  to  recognize  and  to  worship  Him 
when  hidden  under,  and  indissolubly  one  with  a  created 
nature  ?  Apart  from  the  specific  circumstances  which  may 
seem  to  have  explained  each  Theophany  at  the  time  of  its 
taking  place,  and  considering  them  as  a  series  of  phenomena, 


THE  "  ANGELS  "  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.      61 

is  there  any  other  account  of  them  so  much  in  harmony  with 
the  general  scope  of  Holy  Scripture,  as  that  they  were  suc 
cessive  lessons  addressed  to  the  eye  and  to  the  ear  of  ancient 
piety,  in  anticipation  of  a  coming  Incarnation  of  God?" 
(p.  58). 

Now  this  reasoning  has  hardly  the  merit  of  being  even 
superficially  plausible.  If  "  the  Word  or  Son  "  did  not  ap 
pear  in  the  manifestations  referred  to,  they  suggest  nothing 
respecting  "  Personal  Self-un veilings  of  God,"  or  distinctions 
of  Persons  in  the  Godhead.  The  whole  force  of  their  mean 
ing,  in  relation  to  the  doctrine  under  discussion,  depends 
upon  their  having  been,  what  a  Puritan  author  has  called 
them,  "  prelibations  of  the  Incarnation  of  Deity."  How 
could  the  fact  of  the  Almighty's  making  a  created  being  His 
representative,  and  the  exponent  of  His  Will,  foreshadow 
that,  within  His  own  Infinite  Invisible  Essence,  there  was  a 
Second  Person  Who  would  one  day  come  forth  to  clothe 
Himself  permanently  with  a  created  nature?  How  could 
passing  manifestations  of  one  kind  be  in  any  sense  lessons 
anticipatory  of  a  grand  enduring  manifestation  totally  dif 
ferent  in  kind  ?  Would  a  pious  Jew,  meditating  on  the 
Theophanies,  have  been  able,  in  his  most  devout  and  spiritual 
moments,  to  catch  a  glimpse  of  the  inference  that,  because 
God  had  made  angels  His  authoritative  messengers,  therefore 
He  would  at  some  future  day  not  make  them  so  again, 
but  substitute  for  manifestations  and  messages  through  them 
a  permanent  Incarnation  of  His  own  Essential  Being,  dis 
closing  the  existence  of  a  Second  Person  equal  with  Him 
self?  And  if  the  Theophanies  were  designed  to  be  suggestive 
preludes  to  the  Incarnation,  it  is,  to  say  the  least,  remarkable 
they  were  not  continued  beyond  the  earlier,  twilight  periods 
of  the  Jewish  history.  They  were  a  series  broken  off  at  a 
very  early  stage,  and  the  narratives  which  enshrined  them 
do  not  hint  at  a  connecting  principle,  or  an  ulterior  signifi 
cance,  but  rather  present  them  as  separate  exceptional  events, 
attached  to  special  cases  and  circumstances. 

Another  assessment  of  the  Old  Testament  Theophanies  is 


62  THE    "  WISDOM  "    OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 

stated  in  the  learned  Article  on  "  The  Jewish  Messiah,"  to 
which  I  have  already  referred.  Dr.  Davidson  writes :  "  Angels 
belonged  to  the  mythology  of  the  Hebrews,  who  personified 
the  powers  of  Nature.  Extraordinary  operations,  unusual 
phenomena,  manifestations  of  God,  were  invested  with  per 
sonal  attributes.  They,  were  angels  or  messengers  of  Jeho 
vah,  and  are  identified  with  Himself,  because  they  represent 
no  distinctive  being.  Without  independent  existence,  they 
are  only  the  mode  of  His  appearance,  the  invisible  Deity 
unveiling  Himself  to  mortal  eyes.  The  word  Maleach 
(Angel)  favors  this  hypothesis,  because  its  form  is  indefinite. 
It  means  a  sending,  not  one  sent ;  and  is,  properly,  an  ab 
stract  noun.  Almost  all  the  appearances  of  angels  in  the  Old 
Testament  are  to  be  explained  in  this  manner.  The  Angel 
of  JehovaKs  presence  is  identical  with  Jehovah,  because 
what  is  so  termed  is  only  the  manifestation  of  His  presence 
at  a  certain  time  and  place,  —  a  personified  mode  of  His 
operation.  The  Old  Testament  itself,  in  identifying  the 
Angel  with  the  presence  of  Jehovah,  and  with  Jehovah 
Himself,  confirms  the  correctness  of  this  explanation." 

"  The  preparatory  service  rendered  to  the  doctrine  of  our 
Lord's  Divinity  by  the  Theophanies  in  the  world  of  sense  " 
was,  in  Mr.  Lid  don's  view,  "  seconded  by  the  upgrowth  and 
development  of  a  belief  respecting  the  Divine  Wisdom,  in 
the  region  of  inspired  ideas."  He  considers  the  language 
put  into  the  mouth  of  Wisdom,  in  the  first  section  of  the 
Book  of  Proverbs,  to  be  more  indicative  of  a  real  person  than 
of  a  poetic  personification,  and  insists  that  in  chapter  viii.  22 
possessed,  and  not  created,  is  the  accurate  translation.  He 
appears  to  have  overlooked  the  fact  that  possession  by  acquire 
ment  is,  in  the  case  of  God,  equivalent  to  production  or 
creation.  The  Lexicons  of  Gesenius,  Fuerst,  and  Lee  are  in 
substantial  agreement  in  the  meaning  they  assign  to  the 
word  in  the  passages  to  which  Mr.  Liddon  refers,  and  show 
that  the  sense  to  possess  is  unfolded  from  the  more  radical 
sense  to  get  or  obtain.  Dr.  Davidson,  in  his  remarks  upon 
the  text  of  Proverbs  under  consideration,  says  :  — 


SUPPOSED    HINTS   IN   THE   APOCRYPHA.  63 

"  The  verb  never  means  to  possess  simply  and  solely,  but 
always  indicates  the  act  of  coming  into  possession.  All  good 
Hebrew  scholars,  together  with  the  Septuagint,  Targum,  and 
Peshito,  translate  it  create.  .  .  .  The  whole  passage  (22-31 
verses)  has  no  relation  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  It 
contains  nothing  more  than  a  bold  personification  of  the 
antiquity,  excellence,  and  dignity  of  Wisdom.  The  feminine 
gender  would  not  be  employed  to  set  forth  the  second  Person 
in  the  Trinity,  for  the  matter  is  more  than  one  of  mere  gram 
matical  form.  Wisdom  is  represented  as  a  female,  she; 
showing  a  simple  personification.  In  short,  it  may  be  confi 
dently  asserted  that  the  passage  contains  nothing  about  the 
internal  relations  of  the  Godhead "  (Introduction,  &c.,  vol. 
ii.  pp.  349,  350). 

These  remarks  may  be,  in  substance,  transferred  to  the 
figurative  language  of  the  uncanonical  and  therefore  techni 
cally  uninspired  books,  Wisdom,  Ecclesiasticus,  and  Baruch. 
In  the  former  two  especially,  Wisdom  is,  after  a  mode  of 
conception  rare  among  us,  except  in  poetry,  described  in 
language  which,  literally  understood,  implies  real,  personal 
existence.  The  Logos  (Word  or  Reason)  of  God  is  also 
spoken  of  in  a  manner  which  intimates  Word  and  Wisdom 
to  have  been  only  different  expressions  for  ideas  so  nearly 
identical  as  to  admit  of  interchange.  This  fact  points  to 
the  conclusion  that  Word  and  Wisdom  were  not  intended 
to  stand  for  real  personages,  but  were  both  expressions  for 
manifestations  of  the  Divine  attributes,  verbal  equivalents 
for  collective  human  notions  of  the  pervasive,  operative, 
quickening,  and  enlightening  energy  which  is  ever  going 
forth  from  the  Almighty  Father  "in  Whom  we  live  and 
move  and  have  our  being." 

Mr.  Liddon,  who  finds  everywhere  significant  traces  of  the 
mystery  he  has  undertaken  to  defend,  "  seems  to  catch,"  in 
the  Apocryphal  books,  "  the  accents  of  those  weighty  for 
mulae  by  which  Apostles  will  presently  define  the  pre-existent 
Glory  of  their  Majestic  Lord."  He  is  most  unwilling  to 
admit  personification  even  where  personification  is  obvious  ; 


64  THE 

and  distinctly  metaphorical  language  is,  to  his  mind,  literal. 
Figurative  descriptions,  and  the  application  of  conceptions 
derived  from  the  nature  and  actings  of  man,  seem  to  him  out 
of  place  in  that  region  where  to  others  they  seem  most  allow 
able  and  inevitable,  —  the  Nature  and  actings  of  God. 

The  writings  of  the  Jew  Philo,  who  lived  in  the  century 
before  our  Saviour's  birth,  abound  in  statements  respecting 
the  Logos  of  God  ;  and  of  these  Mr.  Liddon  has  given  some 
well-selected  specimens,  though  he  has  riot  been  careful  to 
inform  his  readers  that  the  title  Logos  is  given  by  Philo  to 
Moses  and  Aaron,  and  in  the  plural  applied  to  angels.  It  is 
needless,  however,  to  discuss  the  controverted  question 
whether  the  Word  was  to  Philo's  mind  a  real  person,  or  a 
name  for  attributes  and  qualities  conceived  to  be  inherent  in, 
and  in  various  ways  exercised  by,  the  Divine  Being.  The 
view  which  is  really  antagonistic  to  Mr.  Liddon's  is  not  that 
the  Logos  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  a  mere  reproduction  of 
Philo's  Logos,  but  that  it  had  its  origin,  in  the  application  to 
Christ's  Personality,  of  ideas  suggested  by  current  specula 
tions,  of  whose  prior  existence  and  diffusion  we  have  evidence 
in  Philo's  writings,  and  also,  less  distinctly,  in  the  ancient 
sacred  books  which  lie  without  the  precincts  of  the  Hebrew 
Canon.  The  Logos  doctrine  is  one  which  would  almost  of 
necessity  undergo  modifications  in  every  mind  through  which 
it  passed.  Vague  and  shadowy,  it  could  not  escape  subjec 
tive  influences  in  transmission  ;  and,  when  applied  to  define 
the  presence  of  God  in  Christ,  it  was,  of  course,  moulded  and 
colored  by  contact  with  Christian  facts,  and  combination 
with  Christian  ideas.  There  is  no  need  to  surmise  that 
"  Philo  was  St.  John's  master,"  or  that  there  is  in  the  Fourth 
Gospel  any  close  and  premeditated  adherence  to  speculative 
teachings  found  in  Philo  and  the  Apocrypha.  Occasional 
coincidences  of  thought  and  language,  and  some  similarity 
of  phraseological  forms,  are  not  denied  to  exist,  and  these 
point  to  a  common  and  suggestive  intellectual  atmosphere. 
No  one  disputes  that  the  Gospel  ascribed  to  St.  John  con 
tains  elements  to  which  Philo  was  a  stranger,  and  to  which 


ITS   INFLUENCE    ON   THE   FOURTH    GOSPEL.  65 

his  general  views  may  even  stand  in  a  relation  of  moral  dis 
crepancy.  Philo's  idea  of  the  Logos  was  certainly  not  con 
joined  with  Messianic  anticipations,  and  may  well  have  been, 
as  has  been  suggested,  "to  a  great  degree,  a  philosophical 
substitute  for  them."  The  question  at  issue  has  little  or 
nothing  to  do  with  Philo's  doctrine,  taken  as  a  whole,  but 
concerns  one  elastic  and  pregnant  speculation.  Mr.  Liddon's 
reasoning  on  this  point  is  needless  labor.  Philo.  and  the 
authors  of  the  Apocryphal  Jewish  books,  were  not  Christians, 
and  the  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  w^as  a  Christian,  and 
that  circumstance  at  once  entails  large  differences.  But 
since  a  Logos  doctrine  is  found  neither  in  the  first  three  and 
earlier  written  Gospels,  nor  in  the  writings  of  the  Apostolic 
Fathers,  does  it  not  appear  more  probable  the  writer  of  the 
last  Gospel  adopted  a  widely  diffused  and  attractive  concep 
tion,  than  that  he  stated  a  peculiar  and  fundamental  Christian 
dogma,  which  the  writers  of  the  preceding  Gospels  knew,  but 
had  held  in  reserve  ?  It  is  conceded  "  Philo  could  do  much 
in  preparing  the  soil  of  Alexandrian  thought,"  and  that, 
"  among  the  ideas  circulating  in  the  intellectual  world,  the 
most  instrumental  in  supplying  a  point  of  connection  on 
which  to  base  the  doctrine  of  a  God  revealed  in  Christ  was 
the  Logos  of  Alexandria,  if  not  the  exact  Logos  of  Philo." 
On  the  assumption  that  the  later  Gospel  is  the  work  of  an 
infallibly  inspired  Apostle,  and  throughout  in  real  though 
undiscernible  harmony  with  its  predecessors,  these  conces 
sions  are  only  recognitions  of  a  Providential  preparation  car 
ried  on  outside  the  circle  of  Revelation ;  but,  on  the  ground 
of  criticism  and  free  inquiry,  they  suggest  a  departure  from 
the  primitive  type  of  doctrine,  and  an  accommodation  of 
Christianity  to  external  thought,  by  the  infusion  of  a  foreign, 
though  easily  assimilated  ingredient.  In  another  Book  of 
the  New  Testament,  the  date  of  whose  composition  precedes 
that  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  the  influence  of  the  Alexandrian 
Jewish  Theology  is  too  manifest  to  be  ignored,  though  I  do 
not  observe  that  Mr.  Liddon  anywhere  acknowledges  the 
fact.  Conybeare  and  Howson,  in  their  "  Life  and  Epistles  of 

5 


66  PYE   SMITH    ON   THE   PHILONIAN    DOCTRINE. 

St.  Paul,"  candidly  avow :  "  The  resemblance  between  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  and  the  writings  of  Philo  is  most 
striking.  It  extends  not  only  to  the  general  points  before 
mentioned,  but  to  particular  doctrines  and  expressions ;  the 
parallel  passages  are  enumerated  by  Bleek." 

The  summary  into  which  Dr.  Pye  Smith  (Scripture  Testi 
mony  to  the  J\fessiah,  Book  ii.  chap,  vii.)  compressed  the 
results  of  his  quotations  from  Philo  furnishes-  materials  for  a 
tolerably  accurate  judgment  as  to  the  relation  of  the  Philo- 
nian  ideas  of  the  Logos  to  portions  of  the  New  Testament 
Scriptures. 

"  In  these  extracts,  I  think  that  the  sum  of  the  doctrines 
of  Philo,  concerning  the  Word,  may  be  found.  To  this  Ob 
ject  he  gives  the  epithets  —  the  Son  of  God,  the  First- 
begotten  S^n,  the  Eldest  Son,  the  Word,  the  Divine  Word, 
the  Eternal  Word,  the  Eldest  Word,  the  Most  Sacred  Word, 
the  First-begotten  Word,  the  Offspring  of  God  as  a  stream  from 
the  fountain,  the  Beginning,  the  Name  of  God,  the  Shadow  of 
God,  the  Image  (e/x&W)  of  God,  the  Eternal  Image,  the  Copied 
Image  (dTteixoviGpa},  the  Express  Image  (/«(>«xr/)o)  of  the  seal 
of  God,  the  Branch  or  Rising  Light  (dvarolr]},  the  Angel,  the 
Eldest  Angel,  the  Archangel  of  many  titles,  the  Inspector  of 
Israel,  the  Interpreter  of  God,  a  Representative  God,  a  Second 
God,  a  God  to  those  creatures  whose  capacities  or  attain 
ments  are  not  adequate  to  the  contemplation  of  the  Supreme 
Father.  .  .  .  To  this  Word  are  ascribed  intelligence,  design, 
and  active  powers ;  He  is  declared  to  have  been  the  Instru 
ment  of  the  Deity  in  the  creation,  disposition,  and  govern 
ment  of  the  universe.  .  .  .  He  is  the  instrument  and  medium 
of  Divine  communications,  the  High  Priest  and  Mediator  for 
the  honor  of  God  and  the  benefit  of  man,  the  Messenger  of 
the  Father,  perfectly  sinless  Himself,  the  Beginning  and 
Fountain  of  virtue  to  men,  their  Guide  in  the  path  of  obe 
dience,  the  Protector  and  Supporter  of  the  virtuous,  and  the 
Punisher  of  the  wicked.  Yet  the  Word  is  also  represented 
as  being  the  same  to  the  Supreme  Intellect  that  speech  is  to 
the  human ;  and  as  being  the  conception,  idea,  or  purpose  of 


MESSIANIC    PREDICTIONS.  67 

the  Creator,  existing  in  the  Divine  Mind  previously  to  the 
actual  formation  of  His  works." 

The  anticipation  of  a  better  future,  the  instinct  of  expecta 
tion,  without  which,  as  a  nation,  Israel  could  not  live,  was, 
we  are  assured,  provided  for  and  directed  by  the  Almighty, 
"through  a  long  series  of  authoritative  announcements, 
which  'centred  very  remarkably  upon  a  coming  Person,  and 
fed  continuously  by  the  Messianic  belief,  which  was  in  truth 
interwoven  with  the  deepest  life  of  the  people."  The  Mes 
sianic  doctrine  was  unfolded  through  four  progressive  stages, 
• —  three  within,  and  a  fourth  beyond  the  limits  of  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures.  In  the  first  stage,  which  ended  with 
Moses,  the  personal  rank  of  the  Messiah  is  not  defined, 
though  personal  characteristics  gradually  emerge,  and  the 
Divinity  not  expressly  asserted  is,  to  minds  properly  attuned 
to  discover  it,  implied.  Now,  in  affirming  the  presence  of  a 
Messianic  element  in  the  Old  Testament,  Mr.  Liddon  is  on 
the  side  of  truth :  there  is  such  an  element,  Divine  in  its 
origin  and  purpose,  and  progressively  expanded  beneath  the 
influences  of  a  Providential  Will ;  but  the  prophetic  intima 
tions  in  which  it  is  embodied,  and  more  especially  the  ear 
lier  ones,  are  much  less  direct  and  definite  than  Mr.  Liddon 
imagines.  To  what  an  extent  his  zeal  blinds  him  to  the 
greatest  difficulties,  and  causes  him  to  intrude  the  ideas  of 
dogmatic  Christianity  into  regions  where  they  are  utterly 
out  of  place,  may  be  gathered  from  his  summary  of  Penta- 
teuchal  Messianic  announcements,  among  which  he  confi 
dently  reckons  a  much  disputed  and  quite  improvable 
interpretation  of  Gen.  xlix.  10. 

"  In  that  predicted  victory  over  the  Evil  One  ;  in  that 
blessing  which  is  to  be  shed  on  all  the  families  of  the  earth ; 
in  that  rightful  sway  over  the  gathered  peoples ;  in  the  abso 
lute  and  perfect  teaching  of  that  Prophet  Who  is  to  be  like 
the  great  Lawgiver  while  yet  He  transcends  Him,  —  must 
we  not  trace  a  predicted  destiny  which  reaches  higher  than 
the  known  limits  of  the  highest  human  energy?  Is  not  this 
early  prophetic  language  only  redeemed  from  the  imputation 


68  INTIMATIONS   IN    THE    PSALMS 

of  exaggeration  or  vagueness  by  the  point  and  justification 
which  are  secured  to  it  through  the  more  explicit  disclosures 
of  a  succeeding  age?  >5  (p.  79). 

But  I  am  concerned  with  those  texts  only  which  are  sup 
posed  to  notify,  more  or  less  clearly,  Messiah's  Deity.  Mr. 
Liddon  descries  many  such,  but  in  almost  every  passage  he 
handles  he  neglects  the  contexts,  and  withdraws  from  their 
historical  and  textual  surroundings  a  few  words  susceptible  of 
an  extreme  sense.  "  The  promise  of  a  Kingdom  to  David  and 
to  his  house  for  ever —  (2  Sam.  vii.  16),  a  promise  on  which, 
we  know,  the  great  Psalmist  rested  at  the  hour  of  his  death 
(2  Sam.  xxiii.  5)  —  could  not  be  fulfilled  by  any  mere  continu 
ation  of  his  dynasty  on  the  throne  of  Jerusalem.  It  implied, 
as  both  David  and  Solomon  saw,  some  Superhuman  Royalty." 
Now  here  (1)  the  utmost  meaning  is  put  into  the  phrase 
for  ever,  a  phrase  which,  though  it  may  denote  eternity, 
depends  for  its  precise  force  on  the  association  in  which 
it  is  employed,  and  is  often  used  rhetorically  to  denote  pro 
longed  but  limited  duration.  That  David  understood  it  in 
the  limited  meaning  may  be  conjectured  from  verse  19,  where 
he  says :  "  Thou  hast  spoken  of  Thy  servant's  house  for  a 
distant  time"  using  a  word  which  indicates  mere  remoteness 
(compare  the  far  off,  far,  2  Sam.  xv.  17  ;  Prov.  xxv.  25 ; 
Isa.  xiii.  5).  (2)  The  context,  verses  14  and  15,  shows  that 
the  seed  of  David,  in  whom  the  promise  was  to  be  fulfilled, 
was  not  superhuman  (comp.  Ps.  Ixxxix.  30-33). 

The  language  of  neither  the  second  nor  the  forty-fifth 
Psalm  is,  as  a  whole,  and  in  strictness,  applicable  to  Christ, 
although  both  Psalms  contain  expressions  which  may  alle- 
gorically,  and  by  fair  accommodation,  be  applied  to  Him. 
Verse  9  of  the  second  Psalm  does  not  suitably  portray  the 
method  and  eifects  of  Christ's  government ;  and  the  warlike 
attributes  extolled  in  verses  3,  4,  and  5  of  the  forty-fifth,  are 
not  befitting  the  person  and  character  of  the  Prince  of  Peace. 
Both  Psalms  primarily  refer  to  Solomon,  or  some  other  Jew 
ish  monarch,  and  celebrate,  with  the  license  of  poetical  exag 
geration,  that  monarch's  dominion  and  glory.  The  forty-fifth 


OF   A    FUTURE   MESSIAH.  GO 

appears  to  be  a  nuptial  ode  on  the  occasion  of  a  king's  mar 
riage  with  a  king's  daughter.  There  is,  therefore,  an  original 
historical  sense,  and  a  real  point  of  attachment  among  the 
personages  arid  events  of  Jewish  annals.  No  exposition  can 
be  correct  which  has  not  the  primary  historical  meaning  for 
its  basis.  The  Messianic  signification  is  secondary,  ideal,  and 
suggested. 

The  statement,  Psalm  ii.  7,  "  Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day 
have  I  begotten  Thee"  (comp.  Exod.  iv.  22;  2  Sam.  vii.  14; 
Ps.  Ixxxix.  27),  cannot  possibly  intimate  that  Messiah  was  an 
Eternal  Person  within  the  Self-existent  Substance,  and  does  not 
prove  that  "  His  Sonship  is  not  merely  theocratic  or  ethical, 
but  Divine."  St.  Paul  saw  in  our  Lord's  resurrection  from 
the  dead  the  Messianic  fulfilment  of  the  Psalmist's  words 
(Acts  xiii.  33;  with  which  compare  Rom.  i.  4).  Verse  12 
is  not,  in  the  New  Testament,  applied  to  Christ ;  and  Mi-. 
Liddon  entirely  misstates  its  purport  when  he  says,  "All 
who  trust  in  Him  (the  Son)  are  blessed ;  all  who  incur  His 
wrath  must  perish  with  a  sharp  and  swift  destruction."  JLISS, 
that  is,  do  homage  to,  the  Son;  and  Offer  pure  homage,  worship 
purely,  are  both  admissible  translations^  though  the  latter 
seems  entitled  to  the  preference.  The  Septuagint  and  the 
Vulgate  have  lay  hold  of  instruction.  But,  whether  Son  or 
purely  be  the  better  rendering,  the  anger  deprecated  is  the 
anger  of  Jehovah,  the  trust  enjoined  is  trust  in  Him. 

The  6th  and  7th  verses  of  the  forty-fifth  Psalm  are  applied 
by  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  to  Christ  (i.  8, 
9),  and  in  them  "Messiah  is  directly  addressed  as  God." 
NOAV  it  might  be  enough  to  make  the  very  obvious  remark, 
that  the  Jewish  King,  of  whom  the  Psalmist  was  thinking, 
was  not  God ;  and  therefore  the  word  Elohim  must  either  be 
understood  in  an  inferior  sense,  or  verse  6  must  be  regarded 
as  a  parenthesis  describing  the  Almighty's  throne.  But  there, 
again,  the  translation  is,  in  the  opinion  of  competent  judges, 
very  debatable.  Many  of  the  best  Hebrew  scholars  render 
thy  throne  of  God,  i.e.,  thy  throne,  given  and  protected*  by 
God ;  or,  according  to  a  not  infrequent  usage,  the  name  of 


70  PEROWNE    ON   MESSIANIC   PREDICTIONS. 

God  may  be  employed  to  convey  the  notion  of  excellence 
and  high  distinction,  —  thy  exalted  throne.  Against  the 
Hebraists  who  dissent  from  the  received  translation,  the  dic 
tum  of  Dr.  Pusey  would  have  small  weight,  even  if  it  were 
recommended  by  less  contumeliousness  and  more  charity  than 
appear  in  Mr.  Liddon's  extract. 

Mr.  J.  J.  S.  Perowne,  an  excellent  Hebraist,  and  one  who 
knows  how  to  temper  orthodox  convictions  with  fairness, 
retains,  in  his  work  on  the  Psalms,  the  vocative  rendering, 
0  God /  but  he  also  remarks :  "  This  rendering  seems  indeed, 
at  first  sight,  to  be  at  variance  with  the  first  and  historical 
application  of  the  Psalm.  Can  Solomon,  or  any  Jewish 
King,  be  thus  directly  addressed  as  God  ?  We  find  the  title 
given  to  rulers,  kings,  or  judges  (Ixxxii.  6,  7)  :  '  I  said,  Ye 
are  gods '  (see  our  Lord's  comment,  John  x.  35)  ;  xcvii.  7 ; 
Exod.  xxi.  6.  Calvin,  indeed,  objects  that  Elohim  is  only  thus 
used  in  the  plural,  or  with  some  restriction,  as  when  Moses  is 
said  to  be  made  a  God  (Elohim)  unto  Pharaoh  (Exod.  vii.  1). 
But  the  word  is  evidently  used  of  one  person  in  1  Sam. 
xxviii.  13,  as  is  plain  from  Saul's  question,  '  What  form  is  he 
of  ? '  though  our  version  renders,  '  I  saw  gods  ascending.' " 

But,  whatever  the  true  translation  may  be,  the  context 
demonstrates  that  the  meaning  which  Mr.  Liddon  seeks  to 
establish  cannot  be  the  right  one.  How  can  a  co-equal 
Person  in  the  Eternal  Godhead  be  said  to  have  a  God,  and 
to  be  by  that  God  "  anointed  with  the  oil  of  gladness  above 
his  fellow's  "  ?  Who  are  His  fellows  or  associates,  if  He  is  a 
necessary  Form,  &c.,  in  the  inmost  life  of  the  Self-existent 
Being  ?  Mr.  Perowne,  while  "  most  unhesitatingly  admitting 
that  the  w^ords  of.the  Psalm  have  a  meaning  which  is  only 
fully  realized  in  Christ,"  comments  on  verse  7 :  "  But  this 
Divine  King  is  nevertheless  a  distinct  person  from  God  him 
self —  GOD,  EVEN  THY  GOD,  peculiar  to  this  Book  of  the 
Psalms,  instead  of  *  Jehovah  thy  God.'" 

In  the  language  of  the  seventy-second  Psalm,  which  no 
New  Testament  writer  has  quoted  or  explained  of  Christ, 
there  is  a  strongly  ideal  element,  and  the  expression  of 


MR.  LIDDON'S  ARBITRARY  DEDUCTIONS.  71 

inspired  hopes  and  aspirations  too  pure  and  lofty  to  be 
realized  in  the  reign  of  any  one  of  the  historical  series  of 
Jewish  Sovereigns.  But  the  ideal  element  was  joined  to,  and 
grew  out  of,  what  was  real.  The  poet's  thoughts  were  engaged 
upon  the  accession  of  a  contemporary  monarch,  to  whose  reign 
he  looked  forward  with  pious  wishes  and  bright  anticipations. 
We  cannot  suppose  his  language  to  have  been  simply  and 
purely  prophetic,  detached  from  all  significance  and  associa 
tion  in  his  own  times.  It  is  not  of  the  kind  to  be  literalized, 
and  treated  as  accurate  measured  description,  consciously 
designed  to  depict  "the  character  and  extent  of  the  Messianic 
Sovereignty,"  still  less  to  foretell  that  He  would  be  "  a  King 
immortal,  all-knowing,  and  all-mighty,"  and  therefore,  in  the 
highest  sense,  Divine. 

From  the  hundred  and  tenth  Psalm,  Mr.  Liddon  makes 
this  deduction  :  "  The  Son  of  David  is  David's  Lord,  because 
He  is  God ;  the  Lord  of  David  is  David's  Son,  because  He  is 
God  Incarnate."  The  deduction  is  quite  arbitrary.  On  the 
expression  my  Lord  (Adoni)  no  stress  can  be  laid.  It  is  no 
more  than  a  form  of  courteous  designation  and  address  com 
monly  given  to  superiors.  The  Hebrew  word  employed 
expresses  superiority  in  the  most  general  sense,  and  wrhen 
applied  to  the  Almighty  it  is  nearly  always  written  Adondi, 
as  in  verse  5  of  the  Psalm  now  referred  to.  "Jehovah  said 
to  my  lord,"  is  therefore  language  which  does  not  touch  the 
question  of  Christ's  Divinity ;  and  the  protection  and  honor 
conferred  by  Jehovah  surely  do  not  attest  that  he  on  whom 
they  are  conferred  is  by  nature  Jehovah's  equal.  It  is  a 
poor  straining  of  language  to  say,  "Messiah  is  sitting  on 
the  right  hand  of  Jehovah,  as  the  partner  of  His  dignity." 
We  may  waive  all  inquiry  about  the  authorship  of  the 
Psalm,  and  need  not  insist  upon  the  probability  that  by 
the  expression  my  Lord  the  poet  meant  his  earthly  sover 
eign.  Granting,  on  the  strength  of  Matt.  xxii.  41-45,  and 
parallels  in  Mark  and  Luke,  that  David,  looking  into  the 
future  of  his  progeny,  was  inspired  to  behold  the  Messiah, 
his  acknowiedgment  of  Messiah's  superiority  is  no  sort  of 


72 


proof  he  expected  Messiah  to  be  God.  Messiah  might  be 
David's  son,  and  also  David's  lord,  without  being  Jehovah, 
David's  God. 

On  the  Messianic  sense  of  the  Psalms,  the  conclusion 
arrived  at  by  Dr.  Davidson  is  a  good  general  reply  to  the 
method  of  interpretation  adopted  by  Mr.  Liddon,  and  will 
commend  itself  to  reverent  and  reflecting  Protestant  minds, 
not  governed  by  orthodox  or  anti-orthodox  theories.  "  Noth 
ing  should  be  allowed  to  stand  in  the  way  of  the  grammatical 
and  historical  interpretation,  not  even  the  letter  of  the  New 
Testament,  else  truth  and  independence  are  sacrificed.  In 
that  case  Scripture  is  injured  or  perverted.  .  .  .  The  dead 
letter  must  give  way  to  the  living  voice  within,  else  God  is 
dishonored.  In  conformity  with  a  right  interpretation,  we 
hold  that  no  direct  definite  conscious  prophecies  of  Messiah 
appear  in  the  Psalms.  There  are  unconscious  ones  —  the 
indefinite  longings  and  hopes  for  coming  restoration  —  ideas 
of  future  completion  and  glory  in  the  royal  line  of  David. 
The  New  Testament  writers  quoted  and  applied  such  pas 
sages  according  to  the  current  sense  of  their  time,  without 
thought  of  the  original  meaning.  .  .  .  We  are  not  disposed 
to  deny  the  operation  of  the  Divine  Spirit  in  leading  the 
authors  of  the  Psalms  to  select  poetical  images  that  might  be 
accommodated  to  the  Saviour.  A  principal  point  to  be  kept 
in  view  is  the  ideal  nature  of  poetical  pictures  sometimes 
given  by  these  lyric  writers.  Moments  of  higher  inspiration 
came  over  them,  when  they  were  transported  in  spirit  to 
future  times,  and  spake  in  glowing  terms  of  scenes  resplen 
dent  with  earthly  glory.  Starting  from  the  praises  of  a  pres 
ent  monarch,  they  were  rapt  in  poetic  vision,  to  paint  the 
reign  of  some  majestic  one,  to  whom  all  the  ends  of  the 
earth  should  do  homage.  These  were  to  them  but  ideal 
scenes,  the  manifestation  of  far-reaching  hopes  and  yearning 
desires  engendered  in  minds  of  transcendent  grasp  "  (Intro 
duction  to  Old  Testament,  vol.  ii.  pp.  286,  287). 

In  the  third  period,  extending  from  the  reign  of  Uzziah  to 
the  close  of  the  Hebrew  Canon,  "  Messianic  prophecy  reaches 


MR.  LIDDON'S  MISINTERPRETATIONS.  73 

its  climax ;  it  expands  into  the  fullest  particularity  of  detail 
respecting  Messiah's  Human  Life ;  it  mounts  to  the  highest 
assertions  of  His  Divinity  "  (p.  83).  The  passages  supposed 
to  contain  the  fullest  particularity  of  detail  are  subjected  to 
Mr.  Liddon's  usual  method,  and  therefore  made  to  mean  any 
thing  and  every  thing  which  suits  his  hypothesis.  Sentences 
»and  descriptions  detached  from  the  contexts,  whereby  their 
meaning  is  restricted  and  determined,  become  so  many  loose 
phrases,  amid  which  the  prior  theory  of  the  interpreter  may 
be  incased.  Fragmentary  texts,  taken  from  various  places, 
are  ingeniously  dovetailed  together,  and  made,  by  arbitrary 
combination,  to  announce  or  insinuate  the  doctrine  for  which 
a  Scriptural  dress  is  sought.  By  such  workmanship  it  is 
comparatively  easy  to  clothe  in  the  language  of  Scripture 
conclusions  which  the  expositor  brings  to  the  study  of  Scrip 
ture.  , 

How  pervadingly  the  previous  conviction  underlies  and 
shapes  Mr.  Liddon's  interpretations  may  be  illustrated  by 
two  examples,  one  in  which  the  warping  influence  is  dimly 
disclosed,  the  other  in  which  it  is  glaringly  conspicuous.  He 
thus  paraphrases  Isa.  xi.  3  :  "  He  will  not  be  dependent  like 
a  human  magistrate  upon  the  evidence  of  His  senses ;  He 
will  not  judge  after  the  sight  of  His  eyes,  nor  reprove  after 
the  hearing  of  His  ears ;  He  will  rely  upon  the  infallibility 
of  a  perfect  moral  insight."  The  possession  of  a  Superhu 
man  Nature  and  Divine  attributes  is  here  suggested;  but 
when  we  turn  to  the  words  of  the  prophet  in  the  second,  and 
the  earlier  part  of  the  third  verse,  wre  perceive  immediately 
there  is  no  foundation  for  the  suggestion.  The  Spirit  of 
Jehovah  resting  on  a  human  nature,  gifting  it  with  wisdom, 
and  animating  it  with  the  fear  of  Jehovah,  is  the  avowed 
source  of  the  righteous  judgment  ascribed  to  "  the  Branch 
who  grows  from  Jesse's  roots."  Being  guided  by  the  Spirit 
of  God,  he  will  "not  judge  according  to  the  appearance,  but 
will  judge  righteous  judgment." 

By  a  reference  to  Jer.  xxxi.  31-35,  Messiah  is,  without  any 
conceivable  excuse,  confounded  with  Jehovah.  "  Such  is  His 


74  THE   THIRD   PERIOD 

Spiritual  Power  as  Prophet  and  Legislator,  that  He  will 
write  the  law  of  the  Lord,  not  upon  tables  of  stone,  but  on 
the  heart  and  conscience  of  the  true  Israel."  Now,  granting 
the  passage  does  in  a  general  manner  relate  to  the  Messianic 
period  and  its  attendant  spiritual  blessings,  how  can  that  fact 
imtimate  that  the  anointed  Prophet  and  Legislator,  whose 
followers  are  to  receive  God's  blessings,  is  God  himself? 
The  text  says,  "  I  (Jehovah)  will  write  my  law  in  their 
hearts,"  &c. 

But  E  pass  on  to  the  texts  in  which  prophecy  "  mounts  to 
the  highest  assertions  of  Christ's  Divinity."  Among  these 
Isa,  ix.  6  holds  the  foremost  place,  and  Mr.  Liddon  contends 
the  plain  literal  sense  expressly  names  Christ  "  the  Mighty 
God."  ISTow,  the  words,  "  The  mighty  God,"  would  to  both 
Jewish  and  Christian  apprehensions  be  a  description  appro 
priate  to  the  Supreme  Being  alone.  But  in  the  Hebrew  the 
definite  article  is  not  prefixed,  and  to  say  the  sense  requires 
it  to  be  understood  is  to  assume  the  very  point  in  dispute. 
The  article,  therefore,  since  it  does  not  appear  in  the  original, 
and  does  not  necessarily  belong  to  the  exact  sense,  must  not 
be  introduced.  "Mighty  God"  is,  no  doubt,  a  literal  trans 
lation,  but  certainly  not  the  only  admissible  translation. 
Many  of  the  best  authorities  are  of  opinion  the  word  rendered 
God  ought  to  be  taken  in  a  lower  and  more  comprehensive 
meaning  ;  and  any  one  who  is  able  to  consult  a  Hebrew  Lexi 
con  may  readily  convince  himself  their  opinion  is  not  destitute 
of  foundation.  The  presence  of  a  proverbially  minute  Hebrew 
letter  would  establish  the  translation  a  'mighty  hero,  which 
Gesenius  and  others  approve,  and  which  the  ancient  versions 
of  Aquila,  Symmachus,  and  Theodotion  sustain.  The  Alex 
andrine  MS.  of  the  Septuagint*  has  the  rendering  strong 

*  This  Version,  and  not  the  original  Hebrew,  is  the  source  whence  the 
great  majority  of  the  New  Testament  quotations  from  the  Old  are  drawn. 
The  Version  itself  is  unquestionably  older  than  any  existing  Hebrew 
MS. ;  and  no  known  Hebrew  MS.  dates  so  far  back  as  the  fourth  and  fifth 
centuries,  to  which,  in  all  probability,  the  Vatican  and  Alexandrine  MSS. 
of  the  Septuagint  may  be  respectively  assigned.  The  following  extract 
is  from  the  Article  Septuagint  in  Smith's  "  Dictionary  of  the  Bible  :  "  — 


OF   MESSIANIC   PROPHECY.  75 

potentate,  or,  dividing  the  words,  strong,  a  potentate,  where 
the  adjective  is  more  probably  designed  to  be  the  equivalent 
of  the  term  rendered  in  the  Vulgate  and  English  Versions 
God.  The  Vatican  MS.  differs  from  the  Alexandrine  in  not 
having  any  of  the  titles  given  in  the  Hebrew,  and  agrees 
with  it  in  the  ascription  of  one  title  which  the  Hebrew  does 
not  give.  The  Vatican  reading  is  simply,  "His  name  is 
called  Messenger  of  great  counsel "  (perhaps,  "  of  the  great 
council  ").  The  Septuagint  translators  do  not  seem  to  have 
considered  the  passage  a  prophecy  respecting  a  future  birth. 
Had  they  regarded  the  verbs  as  "  perfects  of  prophecy,  hav 
ing  a  future  meaning,"  they  would  probably  have  rendered 
them  by  future  tenses,  instead  of  has  been  born,  has  been 
given.  The  circumstance  that  no  New  Testament  writer 
cites  a  passage  so  appropriately  Messianic  favors  the  sup 
position  that  the  Vatican  reading  stood  in  the  Septuagint  of 
apostolic  days. 

To  return  to  the  particular  phrase  on  which  Mr.  Liddon 
builds,  Mighty  God.  If  that  translation  were  quite  unques 
tionable,  it  would  not  necessarily  denote  possession  of  the 
Divine  Nature,  but  of  Godlike  strength  and  qualities.  Titles 
are  not,  as  a  rule,  definitions  of  nature,  but  pertain  to  offices, 
qualifications,  and  achievements.  Mighty  or  heroic  God  may, 
as  Dr.  Davidson  explains,  be  "  equivalent  to  a  hero  who  fights 
and  conquers  like  an  invincible  God."  Isaac  Leeser,  in  his 
corrected  English  Version,*  so  translates  that  the  definite 

"  We  do  not  attribute  any  paramount  authority  to  the  Septuagint  on 
account  of  its  superior  antiquity  to  the  extant  Hebrew  MSS.,  but  we  take 
it  as  an  evidence  of  a  more  ancient  Hebrew  text,  as  an  eye-witness  of  the 
texts  280  or  180  years  B.C.  .  .  .  Thus,  the  Hebrew  will  sometimes  correct 
the  Greek,  and  sometimes  the  Greek  the  Hebrew  ;  both  liable  to  err 
through  the  infirmity  of  human  eyes  and  hands,  but  each  checking  the 
other's  errors."  Some  of  the  differences  between  the  Septuagint  and  the 
Hebrew  are  very  broad  and  material.  Quotations  in  the  New  Testament 
often  differ  both  from  the  Septuagint  and  the  Hebrew.  With  respect  to 
the  Hebrew  Text,  it  should  always  be  remembered  that  the  vowel  points, 
which  were  not  employed  till  after  the  fifth  Christian  century,  have  the 
effect,  in  a  multitude  of  instances,  of  imposing  a  particular  sense. 
*  Triibner  &  Co. 


76  CERTAIN    OLD    TESTAMENT    EPITHETS. 

article  becomes  fairly  introducible  :  "  Counsellor  of  the  mighty 
God,  of  the  everlasting  Father ;  "  and  in  his  Notes  observes : 
"  The  only  difficulty  in  the  verse  is  the  word  El,  which  may 
as  well  be  rendered,  with  Aben  Ezra,  powerful  as  God" 
Dr.  Pusey,  as  cited  by  Mr.  Liddon,  does  not  deny  that  in 
Ezek.  xxxi.  11  El  is  used  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  "Aero,  ruler,  or 
mighty  one,  among  the  nations ; "  and  again,  in  the  plural 
(Ezek.  xxxii.  21),  strong  among  the  mighty  /  or  most  powerful 
of  the  strong  (Vulgate)  ;  see  also  Exod.  xv.  11.  It  is  quite 
possible  that  in  these  instances,  and  in  Isaiah  ix.  6,  the  word 
fully  written  would  have  the  Yod,  that  exceedingly  small 
Hebrew  letter,  whose  presence  would  put  an  end  to  conten 
tions.  However,  be  the  correct  translation  what  it  may,  the 
context  forbids  the  sense  for  which  Mr.  Liddon  contends. 
The  prophet,  when  he  wrote  of  a  child's  being  born,  and  a 
son  given,  who  should  sit  upon  David's  throne,  could  not  pos 
sibly  have  meant  that  the  child  and  son  was  the  Lord  of 
Hosts.  He  had  no  knowledge  of  the  ecclesiastical  Triad  of 
later  times,  and,  though  his  language  may  be  suited  to  facts 
and  personages  beyond  the  conscious  range  of  his  thoughts, 
it  cannot  define  ideas  utterly  foreign  to  his  mind. 

The  epithets  — Jehovah  is  our  Righteousness  (Jer.  xxiii.  5)  ; 
and  Immanuel,  God  with  us  (Isa.  vii.  14 ;  Matt.  i.  23)  —  are, 
Mr.  Liddon  asserts,  "  descriptive  of  our  Lord's  nature,  and 
nof  merely  appellative."  As  to  the  words  in  Jeremiah,  there 
is  room  for  very  great  doubt  whether  the  title  used  is  given 
to  Messiah  at  all.  The  grammatical  construction  equally 
permits  the  title  to  be  referred  to  Israel,  or  to  the  Righteous 
Branch  which  Jehovah  promises  to  raise  unto  David.  The 
reference  to  Israel  is  supported  by  xxxiii.  15,  16,  where 
Jerusalem  is  called  by  the  same  name,  a  fact  which  suffi 
ciently  shows  the  name  is  not  descriptive  of  nature,  and  can 
furnish  no  argument  whatever  for  the  Divinity  of  Jesus. 
The  two  words,  Jehovah  Tsidkenu,  ought,  indisputably,  to  be 
connected  by  the  verb  substantive ;  Jehovah  is  our  Right 
eousness  is  the  true  rendering,  and  the  expression  and  its 
application  may  be  compared  with  the  names  given  to  altars 


ETC.  77 

(Exod.  xvii.  15  ;  Judges  vi.  24).  The  Septuagint  version  is  : 
"  This  is  the  name  which  the  Lord  shall  call  him,  Josedek 
(Lord  of  righteousness},  among  the  prophets;"  the  Vulgate 
—  both  here  and  in  chap,  xxxiii.  —  "This  is  the  name  which 
they  shall  call  him,  Our  righteous  Lord." 

With  regard  to  Isaiah  vii.  14,  it  is  so  very  obvious  the  name 
Immanuel  cannot  predicate  a  personal,  in  contradistinction  to 
a  providential,  presence  of  God,  that  Mr.  Liddon's  reference  to 
the  text  hardly  deserves  remark.  But  an  ordinarily  attentive 
reader  of  Isaiah  vii.  sees  at  once  that  the  promise  made  for  the 
encouragement  of  Ahaz  was  a  promise  to  be  speedily,  not  re 
motely  fulfilled.  A  child  to  be  called  Immanuel  (God  with 
us),  in  token  of  Divine  guardianship  and  assistance,  was  soon 
to  be  born  (comp.  viii.  8).  The  terms  of  the  promise  are  also 
thoroughly  and  manifestly  inapplicable  to  Christ.  The  only 
blessing  promised  is  the  deliverance  of  Judah,  implied  in 
the  desolation  and  abandonment  of  Syria  and  Israel,  the  land 
of  whose  kings  Ahaz  was  afraid.  Nothing  spiritual,  nothing 
worthy  of  our  Saviour,  nothing  suitable  to  Him  is  announced. 
The  writer  of  the  first  chapter  of  the  First  Gospel,  or  the 
inserter  of  the  quotation  from  Isaiah,  took  the  passage  in  a 
loose  and  typical  sense,  and  his  application  of  it  is  in  no 
respect  decisive.  The  Hebrew  word  employed  is  not  that 
which  is  often  used  for  virgin  in  the  strict  sense,  but  a  less 
exact  word,  which  means  no  more  than  a  young,  marriageable 
woman  (Gesenius,  Fuerst,  Davidson),  and  is  so  translated  by 
the  Septuagint  four  times  out  of  six,  though  not  in  Isaiah  vii. 
14,  where  they  may  have  thought  the  young  woman  desig 
nated  to  have  been  unmarried  when  the  prophecy  was 
spoken.  It  is  used  in  Prov.  xxx.  19,  which  seems  to  be  con 
nected  in  sense  with  verse  20.  It  has  a  masculine  form  — "  a 
young  man "  (1  Sam.  xvii.  56 ;  xx.  22),  a  plural  derivative 
from  which  denotes  "  youthful  age  or  period"  (Job  xx.  11 ; 
xxxiii.  25  ;  Ps.  Ixxxix.  46  (45)  ;  Isa.  liv.  4). 

Zechariah  xiii.  7  does  not  refer  to  Christ,  and  therefore 
does  not  "  term  Him  the  Fellow  or  Equal  of  the  Lord  of 
Hosts."  Our  Saviour  did  not  apply  the  passage  in  its  original 


78  DR.  PUSEY'S  ARGUMENTS. 

sense,  or  say  it  was  prophetic  of  Himself  (Matt.  xxvi.  31 ; 
Mark  xiv.  27).  He  merely  quoted  a  portion  of  it,  as  an  ap 
propriate  description  of  what  was  then  about  to  take  place, 
the  point  He  had  chiefly  in  view  being  the  dispersion  of  His 
disciples,  in  consequence  of  His  trial  and  death.  The  man 
of  my  fellowship,  to  whom  Zechariah's  words  referred,  was  a 
Jewish  King,  "  so  called  by  God,  He  being  also  King  of 
Israel "  (Fuerst)  ;  the  association  is  in  the  kingly  office,  and 
in  that  alone.  The  historical  sense  appears  to  be  a  declara 
tion  of  the  Divine  anger  against  a  bad  shepherd  or  ruler. 
Perhaps,  as  Dr.  Davidson  suggests,  "  the  prophet  may  refer 
to  Pekah,  whose  reign  was  most  disastrous  to  the  people  of 
Israel.  When  the  shepherd  had  been  smitten  and  the  sheep 
scattered,  Jehovah  would  turn  His  hand  toward  the  poor, 
weak,  afflicted  ones,  and  have  compassion  on  them."  The 
Vatican  Septuagint  Version  is,  "  Awake,  0  sword,  against  my 
shepherds,  and  against  a  man  who  is  my  citizen,  saith  the 
Lord  Almighty,  smite  ye  the  shepherds,  and  draw  out  the 
sheep."  The  Alexandrine  copy  agrees  more  closely  with 
the  Hebrew,  but  has  the  rendering,  "  against  a  man  who  is 
my  citizen." 

It  is  a  pity  Mr.  Liddon  has  done  Dr.  Pusey  the  unkindness 
of  bringing  forward  one  of  the  weak,  untenable  arguments, 
wherein,  in  his  book  on  Daniel,  he  has  allowed  his  prepos 
sessions,  or,  as  he  would  say,  his  faith,  to  dictate  to  his  schol 
arship.*  There  is  no  proof  the  word  rendered  my  fellow  had 
been  "disused,  and  was  revived  out  of  Leviticus."  The  state 
ment  involves  the  inadmissible  assumption  that,  between  the 
date  of  Zechariah  and  the  time  when  the  Book  of  Leviticus 

*  The  very  unfavorable  estimate  formed  by  Ewald,  and  other  learned 
Hebraists,  concerning  Dr.  Pusey's  critical  knowledge  in  the  language 
of  which  he  is  a  Professor,  is,  no  doubt,  caused  not  so  much  by  deficient 
scholarship  as  by  the  special  pleading,  and  reliance  on  wretched  reason 
ings,  into  which  his  downright  uncompromising  support  of  traditional 
orthodoxy  sometimes  betrays  him.  His  intellect  and  attainments  are 
absolutely  subservient  to  the  traditionalisms  with  which  his  piety  is  bound 
up.  He  is  an  earnest,  saintly  man,  worthy  of  all  love  and  respect,  except 
in  his  capacity  as  a  theologian. 


PROPHECIES    OF    ZECHARIAH.  79 

received  its  final  editing  and  emendations,  there  was  a  long 
interval.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  date  of  the  Penta 
teuch  in  its  earliest  shape,  all  Hebrew  scholars  are  agreed 
that  as  it  now  stands  there  is  no  important  difference  between 
its  language  and  that  of  later  books  written  shortly  before 
the  return  of  the  Israelites  from  the  Babylonish  captivity. 
This  fact  points  to  the  substitution  of  more  modern  for 
ancient  forms  of  expression.  And  if  the  absence  of  the 
word  in  question  between  Leviticus  and  Zechariah  proves  it 
had  fallen  into  disuse,  what  does  its  absence  from  the  other 
Pentateuchal  books,  supposed  to  be  contemporary  with  Le 
viticus,  and  written  by  the  same  hand,  prove  ?  It  is  a  puerile 
forcing  of  a  word  which  signifies  companionship,  association, 
friendship,  and  not  primarily,  or  directly,  identity  of  nature, 
to  say,  "  In  Leviticus  the  word  is  used  strictly  of  a  fellow- 
man,  one  who  is  as  himself.  The  name  designates  one  united 
indissolubly  by  common  bonds  of  nature,  which  a  man  may 
violate  but  cannot  annihilate.  When,  then,  this  title  is  ap 
plied  to  the  relation  of  an  individual  to  God,  it  is  clear  that 
That  Individual  can  be  no  mere  man,  but  must  be  one  united 
with  God  by  an  Unity  of  Being."  We  might  as  reasonably 
infer  the  Lord  of  Hosts  is  human,  because  He  calls  a  man 
His  fellow,  as  infer  the  man  is  of  the  same  Uncreated  Nature 
with  the  Lord  of  Hosts.  Is  it  not  a  preposterous  thing 
gravely  to  argue  that  "  man  of  my  fellowship  "  stands  for 
"  Divine  Being  Who  is  by  nature  One  with  Me  "  ? 

In  Zech.  ii.  10-13  ;  xii.  10,  Mr.  Liddon  discerns  a  reference, 
in  the  clearest  language,  to  "  Christ's  Incarnation  and  Passion, 
as  being  that  of  Jehovah  Himself."  As  -to  the  verses  in  chap, 
ii.,  I  must  leave  the  clearness  of  the  reference  to  those  who 
are  able  to  perceive  it,  and  with  regard  to  xii.  10  the  Evan 
gelist  (John  xix.  37)  has  perhaps  followed  the  true  reading  : 
"  They  shall  look  on  Him  [not  me]  whom  they  pierced." 
Jehovah  is  the  Speaker,  and,  if  the  piercing  is  physical  and 
literal,  the  person  mourned  over  would  seem  to  be  the  per 
son  pierced.  But,  surely,  no  prophet  of  Old  Testament  days 
could  have  spoken  about  piercing  Jehovah,  and  bitterly  la- 


80  PROPHECIES   OF    HAGGAI    AND    MALACHI. 

menting  over  Him  as  though  He  were  dead.  "  Many  He 
brew  MSS.,  and  some  old  editions,  read,  'look  to  Him? 
which  agrees  with  the  Evangelist's  quotation  "  (Davidson) ; 
but,  for  the  reading  of  the  received  text,  the  external  author 
ity  is  strong.  Leeser  makes  out  a  consistent  sense,  by  sup 
posing  an  ellipsis:  "They  will  look  up  toward  Me  [for  every 
one]  whom  they  have  thrust  through ; "  and  explains  in  a 
note  :  "  The  objective  case  is  omitted  in  the  original :  whom 
they  have  pierced  cannot  be  an  apposition  to  me,  because  the 
next  clause  is,  they  will  lament  for  him,  not  me  j  hence  it  is 
clear  that  the  objective  every  one  must  be  supplied."  Fuerst 
(Lexicon)  assigns  to  the  verb  a  secondary,  metaphorical 
meaning,  to  revile,  to  calumniate,  and  in  so  doing  comes  very 
near  the  Septuagint  translation  :  "  because  they  have  insulted 
[me]."  The  spirit  of  grace  and  supplication  to  be  poured 
out  upon  the  house  of  David  and  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusa 
lem  would  cause  them  to  look  up  to  Jehovah  with  contri 
tion,  because  in  the  rejection  and  slaughter  of  His  prophets 
they  had  insulted  Him.  In  the  New  Testament  application 
of  the  passage,  a  martyred  prophet  "  is  viewed  as  a  type  of 
the  higher  martyr,  Christ." 

By  his  reference  to  Hag.  ii.  7,  9,  Mr.  Liddon  appears  to  in 
dorse  the  translation,  Desire  of  all  nations,  and  to  understand 
it  of  the  Messiah.  But  that  translation  does  not  quite  accu 
rately  express  the  meaning ;  and  the  application  to  Christ  is 
indisputably  wrong.  Only  two  meanings  are  admitted  by 
good  Hebraists:  (1)  the  desirable  or  precious  things  —  treas 
ure  of  all  nations  /  (2)  the  choice  of  all  nations  —  the  noblest 
and  best  of  att  peoples.  •  The  Septuagint  translation  is  some 
what  ambiguous,  but  it  expresses  one  or  other  of  the  two 
meanings  just  given.  There  is,  therefore,  nothing  to  sustain 
the  statement.  "  Haggai  implies  Messiah's  Divinity  by  fore 
telling  that  His  presence  will  make  the  glory  of  the  second 
temple  greater  than  the  glory  of  the  first."  Haggai's  pre 
diction  is  nowhere,  in  the  New  Testament,  referred  to 
Christ. 

Mai.  iii.  1  should  not  be  disjoined  from  the  question  with 


MR.  LIDDON'S  ARBITRARY  CONCLUSIONS.  81 

which  the  preceding  chapter  ends  :  Where  is  the  God  of 
judgment  or  justice  f  A  judicial  advent  of  the  Almighty  is 
foretold,  the  use  of  the  Hebrew  definite  article  with  the 
otherwise  general  title,  Lord  {Adoii),  and  the  proprietorship 
of  the  Temple,  fixing  the  sense.  The  text,  therefore,  does  not 
"point  to  Messiah  as  the  Angel  of  the  Covenant,  Jehovah, 
Whom  Israel  was  seeking,  and  Who  would  suddenly  come 
to- His  temple"  (p.  89).  The  Angel  or  Messenger  of  the 
Covenant,  and  Jehovah,  are  evidently  distinct  persons,  the 
former  being  denominated  (iv.  5)  Elijah  the  prophet,  to  whom 
John  the  Baptist  answered  (Matt.  xi.  14;  xvii.  12).  "The 
verse  before  us  asserts  that  Jehovah  would  send  His  messen 
ger  to  prepare  His  way,  —  the  Messenger  of  the  covenant 
they  wished ;  and  immediately  after  the  Lord  Himself 
should  suddenly  enter  Jlis  temple,  —  He  shall  come.  But 
who  may  abide  the  day  of  His  corning,  &c.  ?  The  coming 
refers  to  Jehovah  Himself,  not  to  His  Messenger  who  is  sent. 
Jehovah  comes  to  punish,  purify,  and  refine  (comp.  iii.  17, 18). 
By  connecting  the  clauses  of  the  verse  with  one  another  alter 
nately,  the  whole  becomes  apparent :  '  Behold,  I  will  send 
My  messenger,  and  he  shall  prepare  the  way  before  Me ; 
even  the  messenger  of  the  covenant  whom  ye  delight  in  ; 
and  the  Lord  whom  ye  seek  shall  suddenly  come  to  His 
temple,  behold  He  shall  come,  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts ' r 
(Davidson,  Introduction,  &c.,  vol.  iii.  p.  344).  If  we  leave 
the  arrangement  of  the  clauses  unchanged,  and  render  the 
conjunctive  particle  by  its  more  usual  meaning,  and  instead 
of  even,  we  can  then  refer  He  shall  come  to  the  Lord,  and 
obtain  with  some  obscurity  the  sense  which  the  above  trans 
position  more  clearly  brings  out. 

After  interweaving  texts  from  the  Old  Testament  in  a 
manner  to  make  them  appear  to  contain  and  enunciate  the 
dogma  he  advocates,  Mr.  Liddon  exclaims,  "  Read  this  lan 
guage  as  a  whole  ;  read  it  by  the  light  of  the  great  doctrine 
which  it  attests,  and  Avhich  in  turn  illuminates  it,  the  doc 
trine  of  a  Messiah,  Divine  as  well  as  Human ;  —  all  is  nat 
ural,  consistent,  full  of  point  and  meaning."  By  "  as  a  whole  " 


82  STRAINED   EXPOSITIONS. 

he  means,  "  as  I  have  selected  and  packed  it."  Not  a  pas 
sage  he  quotes  in  relation  to  Christ's  Divinity  will,  when 
legitimately  interpreted  by  its  context,  bear  the  meaning  he 
thrusts  into  it.  His  appeal  to  the  Old  Testament  is  simply  a 
string  of  audacious  assertions,  arrayed  in  phrases  picked 
from  this  place  and  that,  just  such  fragments  being  torn  out 
of  a  Psalm  or  Prophetic  book  as  will  serve  his  purpose.  Of 
this  he  seems  to  have  a  dim  consciousness,  though  he  is  not 
at  all  ashamed  of  it,  and  fails  to  perceive  how  injuriously  it 
affects  his  cause.  He  complains  that  "  it  is  possible  to  avoid 
any  frank  acknowledgment  of  the  imposing  spectacle  pre 
sented  by  converging  and  consentient  lines  of  prophecy,  and 
to  refuse  to  consider  the  prophetic  utterances,  except  in  de 
tail  and  one  by  one  ;  as  if,  forsooth,  Messianic  prophecy  were 
an  intellectual  enemy  whose  forces  must  be  divided  by  the 
criticism  that  would  conquer  it."  The  complaint  is  highly 
characteristic,  and  reveals  the  mind  of  one  who  has  sunk  the 
judge  and  inquirer  in  the  advocate.  How  can  we  ascertain 
the  meaning  of  prophetic  utterances  otherwise  than  singly 
and  in  detail  ?  The  true  sense  of  each  one  must  be  dis 
covered  before  we  can  classify  them,  or  assign  to  each  its 
place  in  a  scheme  embracing  the  whole.  They  cannot  be 
fairly  blended,  or  mutually  strengthen  each  other,  until  each 
has  been  ascertained  to  have  a  definite  and  concordant 
meaning.  They  cannot  acquire  by  combination  a  sense  dif 
ferent  in  kind  from  that  which  belongs  to  each  individually. 
The  objection  to  Mr.  Liddon's  argument  is,  that  the  passages 
which  he  imagines  his  selected  fragments  to  represent  have 
not  the  definite  and  concordant  meaning  required.  They  are 
not,  for  the  purpose  he  has  in  view,  properly  cumulative  and 
reciprocally  corroborative  evidences,  but  vague,  unconnected, 
and  often  discordant  materials.  No  doubt  if,  forgetting  the 
specialities  of  the  Hebrew  intellect  of  Jewish  culture  and 
Eastern  diction,  we  look  for  philosophical  ideas  and  precise 
guarded  expression,  we  may  be  tempted  to  think  the  wording 
of  prophecy  "  overstrained  and  exaggerated,"  and  reasonable 
interpretation  of  it  "  insipid  and  disappointing."  But  the 


RABBINICAL   LITERATURE.  83 

presence  in  the  Old  Testament  Books  of  a  Messianic  element, 
and  of  statements  designed  by  God  to  receive  in  Christ  their 
highest  fulfilment,  may  be  freely  and  even  urgently  recog 
nized,  while  the  obviously  truthful  confession  is  not  withheld  : 
"  It  is  impossible  to  suppose  that  the  mystery  of  the  Incar 
nation  was  distinctly  revealed  and  clearly  understood  under 
the  Old  Testament  dispensation.  God  does  not  thus  make 
haste  with  men  "  (PerowTne  on  Psalm  xlv.) . 

To  minds  filled  with  the  impressions  of  traditional  ortho 
doxy,  rational  expositions  of  Scripture  must,  for  the  most 
part,  seem  flat  and  unsavory.  Agreement  with  their  prepos 
sessions  is,  to  such  minds,  the  measure  of  truth  and  spiritu 
ality  —  disagreement  well-nigh  the  sole  source  of  difficulties. 
Calm  investigation  and  rational  judgment  are  not  the  instru 
ments  employed  in  reaching  conclusions,  and  no  faultiness  is 
seen  in  a  method  of  interpretation  which  proceeds  on  the 
supposition  that  the  Sacred  writers,  while  at  one  moment  in 
the  current  of  ideas  belonging  to  their  age,  were  at  the  next 
moment  carried  quite  above  and  beyond  it,  and  prompted  to 
use  language  which  was  to  themselves  either  meaningless,  or 
had  a  meaning  which  contradicted  their  most  cherished  con 
victions.  It  is  sophistry  and  subterfuge  to  refer  to  Rabbin 
ical  literature,  and  say,  "  In  that  literature  nothing  is  plainer 
than  that  the  ancient  Jews  believed  the  expected  Messiah  to 
be  Divine,  with  a  belief  notoriously  based  upon  the  lan 
guage  of  the  Prophets  and  Psalmists."  Divine  is  an  ambig 
uous  word,  and  may  signify  much  less  than  the  proper  Deity 
of  the  One  Uncreated  Being.  In  what  sense  does  Mr.  Lid- 
don  use  the  word?  The  question  is  not  whether  some  of 
the  Jews  have  recognized  in  Messiah  Godlike  qualities,  or 
imagined  Him  to  exhibit  and  exercise  some  of  Jehovah's 
attributes ;  but  have  they  apprehended  Him  to  be  truly  and 
properly  God,  equal  to,  and  in  essence  the  same  with,  Jehovah  ? 
Assuredly  they  have  not.  The  Jews  have  always  believed 
in  One  God,  and  One  only.  To  them,  the  Lord  of  Heaven 
and  earth  has  ever  been  not  merely  One  Nature,  but  One 
Individual  Being.  They  have  never,  either  in  Old  Testa- 


84  THE   BOOK    OF   ZOHAR. 

ment  or  subsequent  times,  acknowledged  a  Godhead  embrac 
ing  distinctions  of  Persons,  and,  if  they  had  ever  believed 
Messiah  to  be  truly  God,  they  must  have  expected  the  One 
Almighty  Infinite  Spirit  would  personally  clothe  Himself  in 
flesh  and  dwell  among  men.  Can  Mr.  Liddon  affirm  they 
ever  did  expect  this  ?  Can  he  produce  the  testimonies  which 
enshrine  such  an  expectation,  and  name  the  document  where 
Jews  have  taught,  or  even  conjectured,  that  Messiah  and 
Jehovah  are  One  and  the  same  Being  ?  If  he  cannot,  the 
language  in  which  he  refers  to  Rabbinical  literature  is  un 
warranted  and  deceptive.  He  has  trusted  too  implicitly  to 
the  representations  of  Schottgen,  on  whose  "  Horce  Hebraicce 
et  Talmudicce  "  well  informed  and  prudent  scholars  now  place 
a  much  abated  reliance.  The  enormous  improbability  that 
Jews  would  imagine  the  Divine  Nature  to  comprise  more 
than  One  Personal  God  interdicts  an  easy  credence  to  the 
statements  of  zealous  partisans,  who  descry  distinctively 
ecclesiastical  theories  in  the  flighty  mysticism  of  Rabb's  by 
whom  Christianity  wras  despised. 

Mr.  Westcott,  in  his  chapter  on  "  The  Jewish  Doctrine  of 
Messiah  "  {Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Gospels),  does  not 
permit  orthodox  convictions  and  desires  to  beguile  him  into 
assertions  incapable  of  proof,  and  of  Schottgen  he  says :  "  He 
has  accumulated  a  most  valuable  collection  of  Jewish  tradi 
tions  ;  but,  apart  from  minor  inconsistencies,  he  exhibits  no 
critical  perception  whatever  of  the  relative  value  of  the  au 
thorities  which  he  quotes,  and  often  seems  to  me  to  misin 
terpret  the  real  tenor  of  their  testimony.  The  writers  who 
have  followed  him  have  for  the  most  part  confirmed  his 
errors." 

The  JSook  of  Zohar,  written  or  compiled  in  the  thirteenth 
century  (Schottgen  suspects  by  a  Christian),  is  one  great  foun 
tain  of  arguments  for  coincidences  and  resemblances  between 
Rabbinical  opinions  and  the  Church's  revelations.  Westcott 
judges  Schottgen's  deductions  from  this  Kabbalistic  com 
pilation  to  be  unwarranted ;  and,  in  a  paragraph  on  "  False 
Interpretations  of  Zohar,"  writes :  "  Pantheism  lies  at  the  basis 


NATURE   OF   JEWISH   MESSIANIC    HOPES.  85 

of  Zohar.  At  the  same  time,  speculations  on  the  Divine 
Nature  are  necessarily  so  vague,  that  recent  theologians  have 
found  in  Zohar  the  whole  of  Christianity.  The  two  natures 
of  Messiah,  and  His  threefold  office,  are  said  to  be  symbol 
ized  ;  and  those  more  abstruse  questions,  as  to  the  Person  of 
Christ  which  agitated  and  divided  the  Church,  are  said  to  be 
anticipated  and  decided  in  the  mystical  dogmas  of  Simeon 
ben  Jochai"  (the  reputed  author  of  Zohar}. 

In  the  Jewish  Messianic  hopes  and  conceptions  up  to  the 
time  of  Christ's  coming,  Mr.  Wescott  affirms,  "  The  essentially 
Divine  Nature  of  Messiah  was  not  acknowledged;  "  and,  from 
his  treatment  of  Rabbinical  literature  generally,  it  is  clear  he 
regards  as  not  proven  all  the  positions  which  Dr.  Davidson, 
in  the  Article  before  quoted,  pointedly  denies.  The  best 
ascertained  results  of  the  evidence  appear  to  be  summarized 
in  Dr.  Davidson's  words  :  — 

"  Following  out  the  hints  given  in  the  Book  of  Daniel, 
some  later  Jews  conceived  that  Messiah  was  concealed  with 
the  Father,  existing  before  His  appearance  to  men,  the  Lord 
and  Judge  of  all.  Highest  of  the  creatures  of  God,  he  was 
the  Divine  Representative,  enthroned  in  surpassing  dignity. 
Sometimes,  again,  he  was  considered  a  great  prophet,  the 
Instructor  of  the  peoples ;  or  the  true  Adam,  reappearing  to 
bring  back  the  paradisiacal  state.  It  is  impossible  to  discover 
a  distinct  vestige  of  the  belief  among  the  Jews  that  he  was 
God  or  truly  Divine.  None  supposed  that  he  was  to  be  of 
the  same  or  similar  substance  with  the  Father.  Why  ?  Be 
cause  it  was  contrary  to  their  Monotheism.  And  we  are  safe 
in  asserting  that  no  modern  Jew  interprets  the  Old  Testa 
ment  in  a  sense  involving  the  Divinity  of  Messiah's  person. 
.  .  .  It  has  been  supposed  that  the  Word  (Jlemra)  of 
Jehovah,  in  the  Targums,  or  Jewish  paraphrases  of  the  Old 
Testament,  is  identical  with  the  Messiah ;  and  therefore  the 
expression  has  been  used  for  doctrinal  purposes.  But  the 
alleged  identity  is  baseless.  .  .  .  The  Word  of  Jehovah 
is  nothing  more  than  Jehovah  Himself,  His  will  going  forth 
into  action,  His  self-revealing  agency." 


86  THE   JEWS   NEVER   IDENTIFIED 

"  The  will  of  God  in  action,  His  Word  taking  effect,  was 
the  initiative  stage  of  that  speculation  to  which  the  Jews, 
ignorant  of  second  causes  or  the  laws  of  Nature,  were  un 
avoidably  led.  By  degrees,  the  Word,  or  Self-revelation  of 
God,  became  so  prominent,  that  Jehovah  himself  receded  from 
view,  and  the  operative  power  virtually  took  His  place,  as  a 
Person  by  whom  He  was  manifested,  a  Mediator  between  the 
Creator  and  creature.  Such  is  the  process  by  which  the 
mediative  element  tended  to  personality,  and  terminated  in 
an  outward  agent." 

"  In  Jewish  literature,  so  far  as  we  know,  no  identification 
of  the  Memra  of  Jehovah  with  the  Messiah  occurs.  It  might 
be  shown  that  it  is  sometimes  identified  with  the  Shekinah ; 
but  the  latter  was  only  the  visible  presence  of  Jehovah,  not 
a  person.  As  to  the  correspondence  of  the  Memra  with  the 
Greek  logos  in  John  i.  1,  and  its  denoting  the  same  thing,  we 
believe,  with  Prideaux,  that  it  is  precarious  to  urge  it." 

"  When  the  Jewrs  are  told  that,  had  their  forefathers  not 
been  swayed  by  prejudice,  they  would  have  perceived  '  their 
promised  Messiah  was  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  co-equal  with 
God,  and  that  he  was  revealed  as  such  in  their  own  Scrip 
tures,'  they  know  the  worth  of  an  assertion  contrary  to  their 
Scriptures." 

The  exposition  which  distils  the  dogma  of  Christ's  Deity 
from  the  Old  Testament  is  remarkably  abnormal,  and  re 
quires  the  warrant  of  another  revelation  to  indorse  its  pe 
culiarities.  Indubitably,  every  maxim  of  reason  is  inverted, 
and  all  acquaintance  with  human  feeling  and  intelligence  is 
set  at  nought,  when  a  faith  so  fundamental  and  constantly 
reiterated  as  the  Hebrew  faith  in  God's  Unity  is  assumed  to 
be  modified  by  the  darkling  insinuations  of  a  few  phrases 
which,  if  they  are  not  decidedly  metaphorical,  are  decidedly 
ambiguous,  and  are  made  to  carry  in  orthodox  commentaries 
the  least  probable  amongst  all  their  possible  senses.  And  if 
the  authors  of  the  New  Testament  Scriptures  had  wished  to 
find,  and  been  satisfied  they  could  find,  in  the  Old,  evidence 
for  the  Godhead  of  Jesus,  such  as  later  exposition  concocted, 


MESSIAH   WITH   GOD.  87 

surely  they  would  have  adduced  something  more  pertinent 
than  Isaiah  vii.  14  and  Psalm  xlv.  6,  7.  In  the  last  chapter 
of  the  Gospel  according  to  Luke,  the  risen  Jesus  is  related  to 
have  explained  to  two  of  His  disciples,  "  in  all  the  Scriptures 
the  things  concerning  Himself; "  and  again  "  to  have  opened 
the  understanding  of  the  apostles,  that  they  might  under 
stand  the  Scriptures."  Is  there  the  faintest  token  of  His 
having  drawn  upon  a  store  of  Messianic  prophecy  which 
"  mounts  to  the  highest  assertions  of  His  Divinity  "  ? 


CHAPTER  IY. 

Brief  criticism  of  the  argument  entitled,  "  Our  Lord's  work  in  the  world 
a  witness  to  His  Divinity."  —  Christ's  authority  and  kingship.  — 
Characteristic  "  originality  and  audacity  "  of  His  teaching  and  plan. 
—  Evidence  for  the  contemplated  universality  of  His  kingdom.  — 
Difficulties  attaching  to  the  supposition  that  genuine  words  of  Christ 
are  recorded  in  St.  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20.  —  Are  the  "Synoptical 
accounts  of  our  Lord's  Nativity  in  essential  unison  with  the  Christol- 
ogy  of  St.  John's  Gospel  ? "  —  The  argument  concerning  the  "  Doc 
trine  of  the  Eternal  Word  in  the  Prologue  of  St.  John's  Gospel " 
examined.  —  Strong  contrasts  between  the  accounts  in  the  Synoptists, 
and  the  last  Gospel,  of  the  time  and  manner  in  which  our  Lord's 
Messiahship  was  freely  made  known.  —  The  reasonable  conclusion 
from  a  general  view  of  his  Gospel  is,  that  the  latest  Evangelist  did 
not  intend  in  his  Prologue  to  affirm  the  absolute  Deity  of  the  Logos 
or  Word. 

MK.  LIDDON  has  made  a  Lecture  entitled,  "  Our  Lord's  Work 
in  the  World  a  Witness  to  His  Divinity,"  preliminary  to  the 
discussion  of  the  New  Testament  witness  concerning  Christ's 
nature  and  person.  This  arrangement  is  hardly  the  natural 
one  in  a  simple  search  after  truth,  but  for  the  aims  of  mere 
advocacy  it  has  manifest  advantages.  In  dealing  with 
Christianity  as  a  grand  fact  in  the  history  of  mankind,  there 
is  room  for  much  striking  general  statement,  wherein  the 
inconveniences  of  accuracy  and  attention  to  details  may  be 
avoided,  and  an  impression  favorable  to  the  reception  of  a 
particular  dogma  may  be  produced.  Outlined  descriptions 
of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  of  the  broader  features  of  Christi 
anity,  and  its  success  in  the  world,  may  easily  be  thrown  into 
a  shape  adapted  to  the  theory  that  Christ's  proper  Deity  is 
the  appropriate  explanation  of  every  fact,  the  solution  of 
every  difficulty.  They  may  also  be  easily  thrown  into  other 
shapes,  and  made  to  point  to  different  and  less  definite  con 
clusions.  Creeds,  which  have  far  less  than  Christianity  has  to 


MR.  LIDDON'S  THIRD  LECTURE.  89 

make  them  acceptable  to  the  intellect  and  religious  sentiments 
of  mankind,  have  spread  rapidly,  and  acquired  enduring, 
extensive,  and  not  easily  explicable  prevalence.  Nothing 
more  than  a  very  disputable  opinion  is  set  forth  in  the  sen 
tence  :  "  The  truth  which  really  and  only  accounts  for  the 
establishment  in  this  our  human  world  of  such  a  religion  as 
Christianity,  and  of  such  an  institution  as  the  Church,  is  the 
truth  that  Jesus  Christ  was  believed  to  be  more  than  Man, 
the  truth  that  Jesus  Christ  is  what  men  believed  Him  to  be, 
the  truth  that  Jesus  Christ  is  God"  (p.  146).  If  the  simpler 
moral  and  spiritual  truths  which  compose  the  main  substance 
of  Christ's  teaching  are  fundamental  laws  of  human  life, 
borne  witness  to  by  the  Spirit  of  God  in  the  human  reason 
and  conscience,  then  the  general  language  wherein  Christ 
speaks  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  and  the  actual  triumph  of 
the  Gospel,  may  both  be  accounted  for  by  recognizing  the 
hand  of  Our  Father  in  Heaven,  and  seeing  in  Christ  not 
His  Equal  and  a  sufficient  substitute  for  Him,  but  His  Son, 
and  Servant,  and  Messenger,  furnished  by  His  Spirit  to  do 
His  work,  and  to  become  our  Lord,  and  Guide,  and  Pattern, 
in  the  path  which  leads  to  Him. 

There  are  tw^o  or  three  points  in  the  third  Lecture  which 
call  for  remark  ;  the  rest  of  its  reasonings  will  become  value 
less  if  the  argument  in  the  succeeding  Lectures  can  be  shown 

O  O 

to  be  fallacious. 

Christ's  authority  and  Kingship  in  the  Kingdom  of  God 
are  spoken  of  in  terms  which  would  be  justifiable  only  when 
Christ  had  been  proved  by  the  clearest  evidence  to  have 
claimed  absolutely  Divine  dignity,  and  to  have  set  Himself 
before  men  as  the  highest  and  sufficing  Object  of  their  adora 
tion.  But,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  He  did  nothing  of  the  kind. 
It  is  assumption  and  exaggeration  of  the  grossest  sort  to  say, 
"  He  deliberately  proposes  to  rule  all  human  thought,  to  make 
Himself  the  Centre  of  all  human  affections,  to  be  the  Law 
giver  of  humanity,  and  the  Object  of  man's  adoration" 
(p.  116).  Where  is  there  the  semblance  of  proof  He  did  so? 
He  knew  that  he  bore  God's  commission,  that  God  was  with 


90  CHRIST'S  AUTHORITY  AND  KINGSHIP. 

Him,  and  that  His  Father's  work,  in  which  He  was  the  Instru 
ment,  would  be  prosperous  and  indestructible  ;  but  He  never 
claimed  to  be,  by  inherent  independent  right,  the  supreme 
Ruler  of  mankind.  His  perfect  filial  dependence  —  His 
unwavering  faith  in  One  greater  than  Himself — His  realiz 
ing  consciousness  of  His  Divine  mission,  and  the  presence 
with  Him  of  "  His  Father  and  our  Father,  His  God  and  our 
God "  •  —  explain  the  breadth  and  boldness  of  His  words, 
when  He  speaks  without  directly  naming  the  One  Supreme 
Fountain  of  all  His  lordship  and  power.  Mr.  Liddon  must 
be  aware,  however  much  his  mind  may  be  saturated  with 
expositions  which  he  conceives  to  be  authoritative,  that  to 
quote  detached  magisterial  and  regal  expressions  of  Christ's, 
for  the  purpose  of  insinuating  He  knew  himself  to  be  God, 
and  wished,  with  some  reserve,  to  impart  the  knowledge  to 
His  followers,  is  to  twist  and  misrepresent  the  whole  tenor 
of  His  recorded  language.  The  Kingdom  is  avowedly  His, 
in  a  subordinate,  not  in  the  highest  sense ;  His  Kingship  is 
delegated,  not  independent  and  supreme ;  "  His  Father 
appointed  unto  Him  the  Kingdom  "  (Luke  xxii.  29),  and  gave 
to  Him  authority  and  power  (Matt.  xi.  27 ;  John  iii.  85 ;  xiii. 
3  ;  xvii.  2,  and  following  verses,  which  explain  xvi.  15).  Our 
Lord  speaks  continually  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  and  the 
Kingdom  of  G-od,  but  rarely  calls  the  Kingdom  His  own, 
though,  in  all  but  the  highest  sense,  it  is  so.  The  expression 
my  Kingdom  occurs,  I  believe,  in  the  language  ascribed  to 
Christ,  only  four  times  in  the  Gospels ;  once  in  Luke  xxii.  30, 
and  three  times  in  a  single  verse,  John  xviii.  36 ;  and  the 
expression  His  (the  Son  of  Man's)  Kingdom  occurs  only 
twice.  The  attempt,  therefore,  to  infer  Christ's  Deity  from 
His  claims  to  Sovereignty  is  quite  futile.  If  the  nine-tenths 
of  His  language  which  are  explicit  may  be  allowed  to  eluci 
date  the  other  tenth,  He  is  Lord  and  King  under  God,  and 
in  an  acceptation  which  in  no  degree  suggests  His  Deity,  but 
implies  that,  in  relation  to  God,  His  sovereignty  is  secondary, 
official,  and  conferred. 

Mr.  Liddon  considers  "the   formation   ot     an  organized 


LAWS,    ETC.,    OF   THE   CHURCH.  91 

society  was  of  the  very  essence  of  the  work  of  Christ ;  "  and, 
from  the  teaching  of  Christ  himself,  would  fain  elicit  the  lines 
of  a  definite  and  extended  organization.  A  Kingdom  of 
souls,  a  spiritual  Society  —  "  whose  original  laws  are  for  the 
most  part  set  forth  by  its  Founder  in  His  Sermon  on  the 
Mount,"  and  "whose  visibility  lies  in  the  fact  of  its  being  a 
society  of  men,  and  not  a  society  solely  made  up  of  incorpo 
real  beings  such  as  the  angels  "  —  is,  of  course,  very  flexible 
with  respect  to  its  "  governmental  organization,"  and  is  the 
very  subject  for  a  daring  manipulator  of  texts.  Our  Lord's 
declaration  that  they  who  confessed  or  denied  Him  before 
men  would  be  by  Him  confessed  or  denied  "  before  His  Father 
in  Heaven,"  and  "  before  the  angels  of  God  "  (Matt.  x.  32,  33  ; 
Luke  xii.  8, '9),  is  translated  into  the  "insistance  with  great 
emphasis  upon  the  payment  of  homage  to  His  Invisible 
Majesty,  outwardly,  and  before  the  eyes  of  men;"  and  we 
are  apprised,  "  He  provides  His  realm  with  a  visible  govern 
ment,  deriving  its  authority  from  Himself,  and  entitled  on 
this  account  to  deferential  and  entire  obedience  on  the  part 
of  His  subjects.  To  the  first  members  of  this  government  His 
commission  rims  thus  :  "  He  that  receiveth  you  receiveth 
Me"  (Matt.  x.  40;  comp.  Luke  x.  16).  It  is  the  King  Who 
will  Himself  reign  throughout  all  History  on  the  thrones  of 
'His  representatives;  it  is  He  Who,  in  their  persons,  will  be 
acknowledged  or  rejected.  Now,  all  this  extortionate  deduc 
tion,  so  far  as  it  bears  on  Mr.  Liddon's  main  purpose,  the 
ascribing  of  absolute,  highest  supremacy  to  Christ,  is  excluded 
by  the  words  of  immediate  context :  "  and  he  that  receiveth 
me,  receiveth  Him  that  sent  me  "  (see  also  Mark  ix.  37  ;  John 
xiii.  20).  The  climax  is  the  reception  of  "the  One  God  and 
Father,"  "  The  Blessed  and  Only  Potentate,"  'Whose  great 
Apostle  Christ  is.  Here,  as  elsewhere,  Christ  studiously  leads 
to  One  higher  and  greater  than  Himself,  and  carefully  shuts 
out  the  idea  which  His  modern  interpreter,  by  mutilated 
quotation,  inserts. 

In  speaking  of  the  originality  of  our  Lord's  design  and 
teaching ;  of  "  His  isolation  in  early  life ; "  and  "  His  social 


92 

obscurity,"  —  Mr.  Liddon  unduly  expands  very  insufficient 
information,  and  builds  with  very  slight  materials.  But, 
granting  that  our  Lord's  mind  was  never  cultivated  by  train 
ing  in  the  schools  of  Gentile  or  Jewish  speculation,  yet  He 
was  profoundly  versed  in  the  Canonical  and  Apocryphal 
books  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  brought  to  their  study  a 
heart  and  intellect  capable  of  extracting  and  assimilating 
their  richest  moral  and  spiritual  treasures.  To  congenial 
minds  inhabited  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  no  kind  of  truth  is  so 
suggestive,  and  admits  of  such  manifold  application,  as  moral 
and  spiritual  truth.  To  unfold  that  truth  and  throw  it  into 
new  practical  forms  did  not  betoken  an  originality  too  vast 
for  divinely-aided  humanity ;  and  the  vision  of  an  universal 
faith,  and  the  establishment  of  such  institutions  as  Baptism 
and  the  Lord's  Supper,  did  not  express  conceptions  so  unique 
and  transcendent  as  to  necessitate  an  Uncreated  Person. 
Christ's  foresight  that  His  death  and  resurrection  would  be 
springs  of  life  in  the  society  of  His  followers  may  be  ex 
plained  by  prophetic  inspiration,  without  fabricating  a  Per 
sonal  Incarnation  of  Deity.  The  originality  of  our  Lord's 
plan  has,  however,  too  indirect  a  bearing  on  the  doctrine  of 
His  Divinity  ;  and  the  plan  itself,  so  far  as  His  own  acts  and 
words  exhibit  it,  is  too  vague  a  matter  to  need  more  than  a 
passing  remark.  The  definiteness  and  details  of  organization 
seem  to  me  to  exist  solely  in  subsequent  additions ;  a  starting 
point  is  mistaken  for  a  prolific  germ,  and  external  accretions, 
more  or  less  congruous,  are  not  discriminated  from  the  un- 
foldings  of  intrinsic,  vital  growth.  But,  on  this  part  of  his 
subject,  Mr.  Liddon,  though  he  strives  to  contribute  to  the 
scope  of  his  argument,  commits  himself  to  few  precise  state 
ments.  His  aim  is  rather  to  suggest  and  insinuate,  and  so 
predispose  the  mind  of  the  trustful  reader  for  the  reception 
of  what  is  to  follow.  Yet  an  early  paragraph  of  his  third 
Lecture  contains  an  admission  in  which  some  readers  will  see 
a  pregnancy  beyond  his  intention :  "  Doubtless  there  were 
great  saints  in  ancient  Israel ;  doubtless  Israel  had  prayers 
and  hymns  such  as  may  be  found  in  the  Psalter,  than  which 


ITS    "  AUDACITY."  98 

nothing  more  searching  and  more  spiritual  has  been  since 
produced  in  Christendom." 

The  "  audacity  of  Christ's  plan  "  is,  we  are  told,  "  observa 
ble,  first  of  all,  in  the  fact  that  the  plan  is  originally  proposed 
to  the  world,  with  what  might  appear  to  us  to  be  such  haz 
ardous  completeness.  The  idea  of  the  Kingdom  of  God 
issues  almost  as  if  in  a  single  jet,  and  with  a  fully  developed 
body,  from  the  thought  of  Jesus  Christ.  Put  together  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  the  Charge  to  the  Twelve  Apostles 
(St.  Matt.  x.  5-4*2),  the  Parables  of  the  Kingdom,  the  Dis 
course  in  the  Supper-room  (St.  John  xiv.,  xv.,  xvi.),  and  the 
institution  of  the  two  great  Sacraments,  and  the  plan  of  our 
Saviour  is  before  you.  And  it  is  enunciated  with  an  accent 
of  calm  unfaltering  conviction  that  it  will  be  realized  in 
human  history"  (p.  113).  Mr.  Liddon's  notion  of  "  a  single 
jet"  must  be  singular;  but  perhaps  a  single  jet,  when  theo 
logically  expounded,  signifies  an  intermittent,  varied,  and 
eddying  stream.  Let  any  one  carefully  read  and  compare 
the  utterances  referred  to,  and  he  will  discover  neither  haz 
ardous  completeness,  nor  perfect  consonance,  but  progressive, 
perhaps  fluctuating  thought.  The  "  fully  developed  body  "  is 
imported  into  the  thought  of  Jesus  Christ,  from  ecclesiastical 
dogmas  and  developments.  Does  the  injunction  (Matt.  x.  5), 
"  Go  not  into  the  way  of  the  Gentiles,  and  into  any  city  of 
the  Samaritans  enter  ye  "not;  but  go  rather  to  the  lost  sheep 
of  the  house  of  Israel"  (see  also  23d  verse),  inaugurate  the 
preaching  of  a  world-wide  religion  ? 

An  eagerness  to  find  in  Christ's  words  well-defined  predic 
tions  of  the  universal  spread  of  His  religion  causes  the  real 
meaning  to  be  unconsciously  overstepped.  When  the  poor 
woman  anointed  Him,  our  Lord  did  not  "  simply  announce 
that  the  act  would  be  told  as  a  memorial  of  her  throughout  the 
world  "  (Matt.  xxvi.  13 ;  Mark  xiv.  9),  but  said  conditionally, 
wherever  in  the  whole  world  the  Gospel  should  be  preached, 
there  her  conduct  would  also  be  narrated.  Knowing  that 
the  faith  and  service  He  enjoined  were  the  faith  and  service 
in  which  all  mankind  might  find  regeneration  and  communion 


94  ANTICIPATED   UNIVERSALITY 

with  God,  Christ,  confiding  in  His  heavenly  Father's  love  to 
imin,  no  doubt  expected  the  propagation  of  His  religion 
among  the  nations  of  the  earth,  but  the  expression  of  this 
expectation  is  a  different  thing  from  designed  and  formal 
prediction  that  in  every  part  of  the  world  His  Gospel  should 
be  preached.  The  saying  (John  x.  16),  "  Other  sheep  I  have, 
which  are  not  of  this  fold,"  &c.,  does  not  amount  to  an 
announcement  that  from  all  the  districts  of  the  globe  our 
Lord  will  gather  sheep,  and  become  the  One  Shepherd  of  all 
men.  Later  opinions  and  after  events  cause  us  to  stretch  to 
the  utmost  the  significance  of  the  words  ascribed  to  Him. 
The  true,  conscious,  original  meaning  may  have  been  nar 
rower  and  less  defined  than  the  sense  we  affix.  And  if,  after 
the  fashion  of  expositors,  we  were  to  be  urgent  about  verbal 
minutiae,  we  could  not  forget  that  in  John  xviL  9,  20,  our 
Lord  is  made  to  declare,  "  He  prays  not  for  the  world,  but 
for  His  then  existing  Apostles,  and  those  who,  through  their 
word",  were  believing  on  Him  ; "  the  true  reading  having  the 
present  participle.  We  are  bound  to  notice  that,  in  Matt. 
xv.  24,  He  is  made  to  say,  "  I  was  not  sent  but  to  the  lost 
sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel ; "  and  again,  in  xix.  28,  is  made 
to  promise  His  Apostles  that  "  when  He  should  sit  in  the 
throne  of  His  glory  they  also  should  sit  upon  twelve  thrones, 
judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel."  *  In  Matt,  xxiv.,  Mark 
xiii.,  Luke  xxi.,  the  language  attributed  to  Christ  himself, 
though  highly  figurative  and  perplexing,  imports  plainly 
enough  that  His  second  coming,  and  the  end  of  the  world 
(literally,  winding  up  of  the  age),  were  to  follow  very  closely 

*  With  Protestants  who  believe  that  Christ,  "  not  having  the  Holy 
Spirit  given  unto  Him  by  measure,"  was  morally  and  spiritually  perfect, 
free  criticism  of  the  Gospel  history  is  a  necessity.  If  we  are  to  hold  to 
the  faith  that  His  character  wan  spotless  and  lovely,  the  Christian  percep 
tion,  which  His  teaching  and  example  have  enlightened,  must  be  at  lib 
erty  to  weed  the  records  concerning  Him.  For  instance,  which  is,  to  a 
venerating  and  rational  mind,  the  more  probable  conclusion,  that  two 
Gospels  preserve  a  legendary  story  (Matt.  xxi.  18,  19  ;  Mark  xi.  12-14)  ; 
or  that  Jesus,  under  the  stimulus  of  disappointed  hunger,  cursed  a  fig-tree 
for  being  fruitless  at  a  season  when  the  presence  of  fruit  would  have  been 
unwonted  1 


95 

after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  to  take  place  before 
the  generation  which  heard  His  words  had  passed  away :  see 
also  Matt.  x.  23 ;  xvi.  27,  28 ;  John  xxi.  23 ;  and  the  numer 
ous  passages  in  the  Epistles  and  Apocalypse,  which  show 
bow,  in  the  expectations  of  the  Apostolic  age,  Christ's  second 
coming  was  not  remote,  but  very  nigh.  The  apparently  con 
flicting  statements,  in  Matt.  xxiv.  14,  Mark  xiii.  10,  where 
our  Lord  is  represented  to  have  said,  "  That  the  Gospel  must 
be  first  preached  unto  all  nations"  (see  also  Luke  xxiv.  47), 
are  explained,  —  (1)  by  the  fact  that  in  Matthew's  record  a 
term  is  used  which  does  not  signify  world  in  the  modern 
acceptation,  but  the  regions  anciently  known  to  be  in 
habited  and  civilized ;  the  Roman  Empire  seems  to  be  its 
widest  New  Testament  meaning;  (2)  by  St.  Paul's  descrip 
tion  of  the  extent  to  which,  towards  the  end  of  his  career, 
he  considered  the  Gospel  to  have  been  already  diffused 
(Col.  i.  6,  23). 

Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20,  is  a  passage  too  uncertain  to  be  quoted 
in  a  controversial  work,  without  some  attempt  to  vindicate 
its  genuineness  from  the  very  grave  doubts  which  other  por 
tions  of  the  New  Testament  compel  us  to  entertain.  Mark 
xvi.  15,  which  only  in  part  agrees  with  it,  is  in  that  conclud 
ing  section  which  every  scholar  knows  to  be  an  extremely 
questionable  fraction  of  the  Second  Gospel ;  and  the  other 
Gospels  do  not  in  any  degree  sustain  it.  The  words  utter 
most  part  of  the  earth  (Acts  i.  8)  are  not  determinate. 
Earth  may  there  have  the  restricted  sense  before  referred  to. 
Bloomfield,  having  an  eye,  I  presume,  to  the  after  narrative, 
writes  in  the  spirit  of  a  reconciler :  "  The  expression  was 
probably  understood  by  the  Disciples  of  that  part  of  the  East 
only,  namely,  Syria.  But  our  Lord,  doubtless,  meant  it  of 
the  whole  world"  And,  if  any  such  plain  command  had  been 
issued  by  Christ,  how  could  there  have  been,  as  Acts  x.  and 
xi.  demonstrate  there  was,  hesitation,  doubt,  and  surprise 
regarding  the  admission  of  the  Gentiles  to  Christian  gifts  and 
privileges?  Let  any  ordinarily  intelligent  and  fair-minded 
man,  whose  attention  has  been  called  to  the  subject,  read  the 


96  THE   APOSTOLIC   BAPTISMAL   FORMULA. 

notices  of  the  first  preaching  of  the  Gospel  to  the  Gentiles, 
and  then  ask  himself  whether  it  is  credible  (if  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles  is  trustworthy  history)  that  our  Lord  had,  at  a 
most  impressive  time,  and  under  most  impressive  circumstan 
ces,  uttered  the  words  which  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20,  puts  into 
his  mouth  ?  It  is  simply  inconceivable  the  Apostles  should 
have  forgotten  such  a  charge,  or  have  failed  to  adduce  it  in 
a  difficulty,  which,  if  it  had  not  totally  prevented,  it  would 
in  a  moment  have  set  at  rest.  Yet  there  is  no  trace  of  recol 
lection  of,  or  reference  to,  the  grand  and  solemn  commission, 
in  whose  exact  wording  Mr.  Liddon  finds  the  occasion  for  an 
outburst  of  declamatory  rhetoric  (p.  117).  It  is  noticeable, 
moreover,  that  St.  Paul,  when  he  writes  concerning  the  duty 
of  preaching  the  Gospel  to  the  Gentiles,  and  the  Christian 
equality  of  Gentile  and  Jew,  never  appeals  to  the  great  Mas 
ter's  decisive  parting  injunction,  —  an  injunction  on  which,  if 
genuine,  the  duty  of  teaching  all  nations  must  have  been  felt 
in  large  measure  to  rest.  Supposing  that  injunction  to  have 
been  really  given,  the  distinction  between  the  Apostleships  of 
the  circumcision  and  the  uncircumcision  (Gal.  ii.  7-9)  must 
have  been  purely  nominal,  arbitrary,  and  unauthorized. 

But  this,  though  sufficient,  is  not  the  whole  evidence  against 
the  genuineness  of  the  passage.  The  Acts  and  Epistles  con 
tain  several  references  to  Christian  Baptism,  but  no  vestiges 
of  the  formula,  "  In  the  Name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  It  is,  indeed,  next  to  impossible  to 
believe,  in  the  face  of  Acts  viii.  16;  xix.  5;  Rom.  vi.  3;  Gal. 
iii.  27 ;  1  Cor.  i.  13-15,  that  the  Christians  of  Apostolic  days 
used  the  formula.*  Baptism  into  the  Name  of  Jesus  Christ, 
and  into  Jesus  Christ,  is  not  Baptism  after  the  form  pre 
scribed  at  the  close  of  the  First  Gospel.  There  must  have 
been  in  the  words  with  which  Christian  Baptism  was  at  .first 
administered  a  distinctly  prominent,  not  to  say  exclusive, 
connection  with  the  Name  of  Christ,  and  the  idea  of  Christ's 

*  To  the  texts  above  referred  to  may  be  added  Acts  ii.  38,  x.  48; 
though  the  use  of  a  different  preposition  makes  the  contrast  with  Matt, 
xxviii.  19  less  clear  and  certain. 


THE    ACCOUNTS    OF    CHRIST'S    BIRTH.  97 

leadership  ;  for  upon  any  other  supposition  St.  Paul's  remon 
strance  with  the  sectarian  Corinthians  —  "  Is  Christ  divided, 
was  Paul  crucified  for  you,  or  were  ye  baptized  into  the  name 
of  Paul  ?  " —  would  be,  in  its  final  clause,  pointless  and  inex 
plicable.  If  St.  Paul  had  known  that  his  converts  had  been 
baptized  "  into  the  Name  of  the  Father,"  &c.,  how  could  fear 
have  crossed  his  mind,  lest  "  any  should  say  he  had  baptized 
into  his  own  name "  ?  The  worst  instructed  convert  from 
heathenism  could  scarcely  confuse  the  Names  of  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghost,  with  the  name  of  a  missionary  by  whom 
Baptism  had  been  administered.  And  how,  we  may  well  ask, 
could  St.  Paul  have  written,  "  Christ  sent  me  not  to  baptize, 
but  to  preach  the  Gospel"  (1  Cor.  i.  17),  if  our  Lord  had,  by 
His  own  parting  directions,  sent  His  Apostles  to  baptize,  no 
less  positively  than  He  sent  them  to  teach?  That  St.  Paul 
was  not  one  of  the  original  eleven  is  no  satisfactory  reply  :  he 
could  hardly  have  been  ignorant  what  commission  they  had 
received,  and  his  own  separate  commission,  coming  from  the 
same  Master,  and  relating  to  the  same  work,  is  not  likely  to 
have  differed  from  theirs  in  an  important  point. 

The  introductory  statements  of  the  fourth  Evangelist  seem 
to  Mr.  Liddon  perfectly  reconcilable  with  the  narratives  given 
by  the  first  and  by  the  third.  "  The  accounts,  then,  of  our 
Lord's  birth  in  two  of  the  synoptic  Evangelists,  as  illustrated 
by  the  sacred  songs  of  praise  and  thanksgiving  which  St. 
Luke  has  preserved,  point  clearly  to  the  entrance  of  a  super 
human  Being  into  this  our  human  world.  Who  indeed  He 
was  is  stated  more  explicitly  by  St.  John ;  but  St.  John  does 
not  deem  it  necessary  to  repeat  the  history  of  His  Advent. 
The  accounts  of  the  Annunciation  and  the  Miraculous  Con 
ception  would  not  by  themselves  imply  the  Divinity  of  Christ. 
But  they  do  imply  that  Christ  is  superhuman ;  they  harmonize 
with  the  kind  of  anticipations  respecting  Christ's  appearance 
in  the  world,  which  might  be  created  by  St,  John's  doctrine 
of  His  pre-existent  glory.  These  accounts  cannot  be  forced 
within  the  limits,  and  made  to  illustrate  the  laws,  of  Nature. 
But,  at  least,  St.  John's  narrative  justifies  mysteries  in  the 

7 


98  APPEARANCE   OF   DISCREPANCIES. 

synoptic  Gospels  which  would  be  unintelligible  without  it; 
and  it  is  a  vivid  commentary  upon  hymns,  the  lofty  strains  of 
which  might  of  themselves  be  thought  to  savor  of  exag 
geration"  (p.  249). 

Now,  persons  who  give  the  subject  a  calm  and  impartial 
attention  can  scarcely  fail  to  observe  that  there  is,  to  say  the 
least,  a  great  appearance  of  discrepancy  between  the  accounts 
of  the  Nativity,  and  the  announcement  of  the  Fourth  Gos 
pel, —  the  Logos  became  Flesh.  That  announcement  agrees 
with  the  doctrine  which  recognizes  in  Christ  no  real  complete 
personal  humanity;  but  the  plain  meaning  of  the  two  Synop- 
tists  is,  that  a  human  person  was  brought  into  existence  by  a 
miraculous  conception  and  birth.  There  is  nothing  whatever 
in  the  synoptical  narrative  to  show  the  person  of  Christ  to 
have  been  superhuman  in  the  sense  of  being  pre-existent,  and 
independent  of  mortal  birth.*  The  inferences  from  the  Evan 
gelical  Canticles,  in  the  first  chapter  of  the  third  Gospel,  are 
as  ill-grounded  as  is  the  inference  from  the  prophetic  name 
Emmanuel,  in  which  Mr.  Liddon  discovers  an  intimation  of 
"  the  full  truth,  that  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God,  as  being  of  the 

*  Some  prominent  points  in  the  diversities  entailed  by  the  seemingly 
diverse  conceptions  of  Christ's  person  entertained  by  the  Synoptists  and 
the  last  Evangelist  are  brought  together  in  the  following  extract  from 
Dr.  Davidson's  very  instructive  and  much-needed  Introduction  to  the  Study 
of  the  New  Testament :  "  In  conformity  with  the  doctrine  of  the  incar 
nate  Logos,  every  thing  is  avoided  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  that  would  favor 
the  idea  of  Christ's  development  in  knowledge  and  virtue.  He  is  perfect 
at  first,  and  all  that  implies  growth  is  carefully  kept  out  of  sight.  The 
traditions  that  represent  Him  as  a  descendant  of  David,  the  genealogies 
in  Matthew,  His  birth  at  Bethlehem,  the  adoration  of  the  Infant  by  the 
Eastern  Magi  as  King  of  the  Jews,  and  the  miraculous  conception,  are 
absent.  The  fact  that  Jesus  was  baptized  by  John  His  inferior  is  also 
omitted.  The  Incarnate  Word  cannot  be  exposed  to  the  temptation  re 
corded  in  the  Synoptists ;  nor  need  a  heavenly  voice  to  attest  His  Son- 
ship.  .  .  .  The  entire  account  of  His  passion  is  also  adapted  to  show  that 
the  Word  made  flesh  was  the  Lamb  of  God  who  takes  away  the  sin  of 
the  world.  He  does  not  pray,  '  Father,  if  it  be  possible,  let  this  cup  pass 
from  me ; '  but '  The  cup  which  my  Father  hath  given  me,  shall  I  not 
drink  it  1 '  nor  would  He  say,  '  Father,  save  me  from  this  hour/  since  He 
had  come  for  that  hour.  He  knows  the  traitor  from  the  beginning,  and 
proceeds  to  the  place  whither  Judas  is  about  to  come,  to  show  his  obedi- 


PROLOGUE    OP   THE    FOURTH  .GOSPEL.  99 

Divine  Essence"  (p.  247).  It  is  simply  untrue  that  in  the 
song  of  thanksgiving  attributed  to  Zacharias,  "  the  new-born 
Saviour  is  the  Lord,  whose  forerunner  has  been  announced  by 
prophecy"  (Luke  i.  76) ;  the  Lord,  there,  is,  quite  obviously, 
the  Highest,  the  Lord  God  of  Israel,  to  Whom  the  whole 
Canticle  is  addressed. 

The  prologue  of  the  fourth  Evangelist  has  naturally  a  con 
spicuous  place  in  Mr.  Liddon's  argument.  "  By  the  word 
Logos,"  he  says,  "  St.  John  carries  back  his  History  of  our 
Lord  to  a  point  at  which  it  has  not  yet  entered  into  the 
sphere  of  sense  and  time.  .  .  At  a  point  to  which  man  can 
not  apply  his  finite  conception  of  time,  there  was  —  the  Logos 
or  Word.  When  as  yet  nothing  had  been  made,  He  icas. 
What  was  the  Logos  f  .  .  .  The  term  Logos  denotes,  at  the 
very  least,  something  intimately  and  everlastingly  present 
with  God,  something  as  internal  to  the  Being  of  God  as 
thought  is  to  the  soul  of  man.  In  truth,  the  Divine  Logos 
is  God  reflected  in  His  own  eternal  Thought ;  in  the  Logos 
God  is  His  own  Object.  This  Infinite  Thought,  the  reflec 
tion  and  counterpart  of  God,  subsisting  in  God  as  a  Being  or 
Hypostasis,  and  having  a  tendency  to  self-communication,  — 

ence  to  the  Father.  His  enemies  fall  to  the  ground  when  He  says,  '  I  am 
He  ; '  and  He  dies  uttering  the  triumphant  cry,  '  It  is  finished.'  He  does 
not  partake  of  the  paschal  supper,  because  He  was  himself  the  true  pass- 
over.  .  .  .  Before  Pilate,  the  synoptical  King  of  the  Jews  is  transformed 
into  a  Sovereign,  whose  kingdom  is  truth.  Simon  of  Cyrene  does  not 
appear,  because  the  idea  of  exhaustion  and  faintness  would  be  deroga 
tory.  '  Eli,  Eli,  lama  Sabacthani,'  is  also  eliminated  from  the  gospel. 
No  external  prodigy  enhances  the  grandeur  of  His  death.  No  earth 
quake,  no  rending  of  rocks,  or  of  the  temple-vail,  appears.  His  body 
is  laid  in  the  tomb  by  two  men  of  distinction,  and  embalmed  at  great 
cost,  contrary  to  the  synoptical  account.  After  His  resurrection  He 
presents  himself  without  previous  notice  to  Mary  Magdalene,  and  then 
to  the  ten.  Angels  do  not  announce  Him  to  the  disciples.  .  .  .  These 
observations  show  that  the  Gospel  was  not  meant  for  history.  It  was 
composed  in  another  interest  than  the  historical.  .  .  .  Speculative  con 
siderations  are  paramount.  There  is  no  human  development,  no  growth 
of  incidents  or  course  of  life.  The  transactions  are  in  the  realm  of 
thought.  The  Word  enshrined  in  His  earthly  tabernacle  flashes  out 
splendor  on  the  people,  indicating  the  eternal  and  all-embracing  light 
•which  is  to  purify  the  world"  (vol.  ii.  pp.  343-345). 


100 

such  is  the  Logos.  The  Logos  is  the  Thought  of  God,  not 
intermittent  and  precarious  like  human  thought,  but  subsist 
ing  with  the  intensity  of  a  personal  form.  .  .  .  What  was 
the  relation  of  the  Word  to  the  Self-existent  Being?  He 
was  not  merely  naya  iw  0eo),  along  with  God  (xvii.  5),  but 
TtQog  TOV  Qsbv  (i.  1,  2).  This  last  preposition  expresses,  beyond 
the  fact  of  co-existence  or  immanence,  the  more  significant 
fact  of  perpetuated  inter-communion.*  The  Face  of  the 
Everlasting  Word,  if  we  may  dare  so  to  express  ourselves, 
was  ever  directed  towards  the  Face  of  the  Everlasting  Father. 
But  was  the  Logos  then  an  independent  being,  existing  ex 
ternally  to  the  One  God  ?  To  conceive  of  an  independent 
being,  anterior  to  creation,  would  be  an  error  at  issue  with 
the  first  truth  of  monotheism ;  and  therefore  Osog  ty  6  yio'/og. 
The  Word  is  not  merely  a  Divine  Being,  but  He  is,  in  the 
absolute  sense,  God.  Thus  from  His  eternal  existence  we 
ascend  first  to  His  distinct  Personality,  and  then  to  the  full 
truth  of  his  substantial  Godhead"  (pp.  227-229). 

I  have  quoted  Mr.  Liddon  at  length,  because  I  am  quite  un 
able  to  understand,  and  would  not  willingly  misrepresent  him. 
He  seems  to  me  to  be  entangled  among  words,  and  to  have 
lost  his  hold  upon  intelligible  ideas.  His  language  makes 
nrore  enigmatical  than  ever  the  grand  enigma  that  the  Self- 
existent  Nature  is  One  Indivisible  Substance  enfolding  a 
Plurality  of  Persons,  each  of  Whom  possesses  "  the  totality 
of  the  Divine  attributes." 

In  the  beginning,  and  from  all  eternity,  may  be  theologi 
cally,  but  are  not  rationally,  convertible  phrases.  Logos  is 
evidently  a  term  of  most  mutable  and  difficult,  not  to  say  in 
comprehensible  significance ;  Word:  Infinite  Thought;  God 
reflected  in  His  Own  eternal  Thought  /  and  yet  a  Person 

*  Trpof  does  not  express  "  immanence  "  or  internal  annexation,  and  the 
radical  signification  towards  is  not  invariably  retained  in  the  sense.  There 
can  be  no  doubt  about  the  justice  of  Winer's  observation  :  "  Sometimes 
Trpdf  with  a  noun  in  the  Accusative  appears  to  lose  the  import  of  the 
Accusative,  and  to  signify  simply  with,  particularly  before  names  of  per 
sons,  as  in  Matt.  xiii.  56 ;  John  i.  1 ;  1  Cor.  xvi.  6." 


DONALDSON'S  VIEW.  101 

whose  distinct  personality  leaves  unimpaired  the  personality 
of  the  Everlasting  Father  God,  Whose  Word  and  Thought 
he  is  :  — who  can  understand  this  revelation  of  the  Logos,  or 
follow  its  Oxford  expounder?  Must  we  not  conclude  either 
the  writer  of  the  fourth  Gospel  did  not  know  his  own  mean 
ing,  or  used  his  terms  in  senses  lower  than,  and  different 
from,  the  senses  assigned  by  Mr.  Liddon  ?  It  is  impossible 
for  any  man  not  illumined  by  light  beyond  that  which  reason 
and  Scripture  furnish,  to  speak  confidently  about  the  expres 
sion  commonly  translated  The  Word  was  God  Logos  is 
most  obscure,  and  the  name  God  is  without  the  article,  while 
the  article  is  prefixed  in  the  phrase  with  God,  which  stands 
immediately  before  and  immediately  after.  This  omission 
of  the  article  creates  an  ambiguity  quite  unaccountable  it 
the  writer  had  wished  to  avouch  that  the  Word  is  absolutely, 
in  the  fullest  and  highest  acceptation,  God.  Winer  remarks 
(Sec.  xix.  1) :  "The  Article  could  not  have  been  omitted,  if 
John  had  intended  to  say  that  the  Logos  was  6  0&b<s  (the 
God),  as  in  this  passage  dzb^  alone  was  ambiguous.  That 
John  designedly  omitted  the  article  is  apparent,  partly  from 
the  distinct  antithesis,  with  the  God,  and  partly  from  the 
whole  description  of  the  Logos."  Dr.  James  Donaldson,* 
in  his  "  Critical  History  of  Christian  Literature,"  &c.,  after 
noticing  that  no  translation  into  English  can  exactly  repre 
sent  difficulties  which  the  words  of  the  first  verse  of  the 
fourth  Gospel  suggest,  writes  : — 

"  That  John  does  not  assert  that  the  Logos  was  one,  or  of 
the  same  nature  with  the  God,  is  plain  from  his  use  of  Osbg 
without  the  article.  The  unity  of  the  Divine  Nature  in  God 
and  Christ  may  be  a  satisfactory  explanation  of  John's  state 
ment,  but  it  is  not  what  John  states.  The  word  Osog,  as  we 
shall  see  in  treating  of  Justin  Martyr's  use  of  the  term,  and 
in  many  other  cases  was  very  widely  applied.  It  was  some 
times  applied  to  man  when  perfected ;  it  was  applicable  to 

*  Joint  editor  with  Dr.  Roberts  of  Messrs,  darks'  very  serviceable 
series  of  translations,  "  The  Ante-Nicene  Christian  Library."  "The  His 
tory  of  Christian  Literature,"  &c.,  is  published  by  Macmillan. 


102  DAVIDSON'S  ANALYSIS  OF  "  LOGOS." 

any  being  possessed  of  supernatural  powers ;  especially  was 
it  applicable  to  a  being  who  was  worshipped.*  And  per 
haps  what  John  meant  to  do,  and  certainly  what  he  seems  to 
do  here,  is  to  make  a  very  wide  general  statement  that  the 
Logos  was  Divine.  He  does  not  obviate  any -of  the  difficul 
ties  which  might  arise  from  the  assertion.  As  far  as  John's 
statement  goes,  we  are  bound  to  believe  that  the  Logos  is  a 
Divine  Being  ;  but  we  go  beyond  John's  statement  when  we 
either  assert  that  there  are  two  Gods  of  equal  glory  and  of 
the  same  substance,  or  that  there  is  but  one  Divine  Being, 
but  two  persons.  John's  assertion  is  of  the  vaguest  and 
most  general  nature.  ...  It  seems  scarcely  possible  not  to 
identify  the  statement  in  John's  introduction  with  Philo's 
doctrine.  But  we  are  not  bound  on  that  account  to  suppose 
that  John  accepted  the  whole  of  Philo's  doctrine.  His  words, 
and  the  Word  was  a  God,  do  not  state  that  the  Logos  was  a 
second  God"  (vol.  ii.,  Introduction,  pp.  41-43). 

Dr.  Davidson,  in  his  recent  "Introduction  to  the  New  Testa 
ment,"  judging  "  the  balance  of  evidence  to  be  clearly  against 
the  fourth  Gospel's  authenticity,"  naturally  sees,  in  some  of 
its  dubious  expressions,  such  an  approach  to  the  full  Deifica 
tion  of  Christ  as  might  be  expected  from  a  Christian  writing 
towards  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  Avith  the  purpose 
of  affirming  and  exalting  Christ's  pre-existent  Being.  In  his 
analysis  of  the  Gospel's  contents,  he  says  :  "  The  Logos  was 
a  concrete  person  before  the  world  existed,  not  becoming  so 
at  the  Incarnation.  As  reason  becomes  speech,  so  when  the 
eternal  reason  manifests  itself,  it  is  as  the  Logos ;  not  neces 
sarily  hypostatic,  but  such  in  the  Gospel.  When  the  Word 
issued  from  the  Divine  Essence,  i.e.,  was  begotten,  whether 
from  eternity  or  not,  the  Evangelist  forbears  to  say.  ...  It  is 
observable  that  the  appellation  the  Word  does  not  occur  in  the 

*  In  giving  reasons  for  the  necessity  of  "-a  fresh  definition  at  Nicaea," 
Mr.  Liddon  tells  us,  "  In  the  Arian  age  it  was  not  enough  to  say  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  God,  because  the  Arians  had  contrived  to  impoverish  and 
degrade  the  idea  conveyed  by  the  Name  of  God  so  completely  as  to  apply 
that  sacred  word  to  a  creature  "  (p.  434). 


"  THEOS  "    WITHOUT    THE    ARTICLE.  103 

speeches  of  Jesus  himself;  but  that  is  no  argument  against  its 
being  synonymous  with  Christ.  .  .  .  The  Father  and  the  Son 
are  both  God ;  but  the  Father  alone  is  absolute  God,  filling  up 
the  whole  idea.  The  Son  is  a  God,  not  God  absolutely ;  and 
does  not  exhaust  the  conception  "  (vol.  ii.  pp.  325,  327). 

The  use  of  Osog  without  the  article,  in  looser  and  inferior 
senses,  is  illustrated  by  John  x.  33,  35  ;  Acts  xii.  22 ;  xxviii. 
6 ;  2  Thess.  ii.  4.  The  difference  between  a  god,  and  the 
Almighty  Creator,  is  obvious  in  these  texts  ;  and  readers  of 
the  Greek  Testament  will  notice  how,  in  immediate  contexts, 
Oco^  with  the  article  is  used  to  denote  the  Most  High.  The 
speculative,  nebulous  title,  the  Word,  is  not  given  to  Christ 
in  the  fourth  Gospel  after  the  14th  verse  of  the  first  chapter, 
though  the  ascription  to  him  of  pre-existence  and  exalted 
dignity  is  plain  throughout.  But  if  the  Evangelist  had  a 
firm  and  coherent  conception  of  the  Word's  true  personal 
Deity,  it  is  strange  that  he  makes  John  the  Baptist,  into 
whose  mouth  he  puts  very  explicit  testimony  to  the  Person 
and  work  of  Jesus,  declare  (iii.  34)  Jesus  to  have  been  the 
recipient  of  the  Spirit,  in  unmeasured  gift.  How  could  a 
Being,  "  Who  is  in  the  absolute  sense  God,"  require  or  receive 
the  Holy  Spirit  ?  We  can  understand  how  the  visible 
descent  of  the  Spirit  to  which  the  Baptist  refers  (i.  32,  33), 
might  be,  in  the  Evangelist's  view,  no  more  than  a  miracu 
lous  attestation  to  John  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah  and  Son 
of  God,  but  to  seek  in  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  any  qualification 
for  Christ's  work  as  the  Messenger  of  God,  or  any  explana 
tion  of  the  fact  of  His  speaking  the  words  of  God,  is  incon 
sistent  with  the  idea  of  His  complete  and  Essential  Divinity. 
If  our  Lord's  manhood  had  been  "  of  Itself  an  individual 
Being,"  instead  of  "  a  vesture  which  He  folded  around  His 
Person,"  we  should  still  have  been  at  a  loss  to  imagine  what 
office  the  Spirit  could  have  in  endowing  or  regulating  a  Na 
ture  already  indissolubly  linked  to  the  Nature  of  Very  and 
Eternal  God.  Was  the  Logos  dormant,  and  did  the  Third 
Person  in  the  Blessed  Trinity  undertake  the  work,  not  only 
of  causing  the  conception  of  Christ's  Humanity,  but  of  guid- 


104  THE   HOLY   SPIRIT'S   RELATION   TO    CHRIST. 

ing  and  sanctifying  that  Humanity  after  its  junction  with 
the  Second  Person  of  "  the  mysterious  Three  Who  yet  are 
One  ?  "  If  Christ's  ministerial  endowments,  or  any  portion 
of  His  perfect  holiness,  resulted  from  the  presence  with  His 
human  nature  of  God's  Spirit,  what  activity  and  influence 
had  the  Eternal  Word,  "  Who  is  One  in  Essence  with  the 
First  and  the  Third  of  the  Persons  or  Subsistences,"  Who 
together  compose  the  Indivisible  Self-existent  Substance? 
The  action  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  the  enrichment  or  sanctifi- 
cation  of  our  Lord's  Humanity,  is  out  of  harmony  with  the 
doctrine  of  the  Incarnate  Logos,  enunciated  at  the  outset  of 
the  fourth  Gospel.  It  would  be  out  of  harmony,  even  on  the 
supposition  that  Christ  had  a  human  person  to  be  enriched 
and  sanctified ;  it  is  far  more  out  of  harmony  according  to 
the  orthodox  dogma  which  Mr.  Liddon  repeats :  "  the  Person 
of  the  Son  of  Mary  is  Divine  and  Eternal."  To  assume  John 
the  Baptist  used  the  words  which  the  Evangelist  records, 
and  was  mistaken  in  doing  so,  would  remove  the  difficulty, 
but  would  not  altogether  accord  with  the  extensive  knowledge 
and  full  attestation  of  Christ's  heavenly  descent  and  mission, 
which  the  speeches  ascribed  to  the  Baptist  indicate.  But, 
however  that  may  be,  the  Holy  Spirit  is,  in  the  Synoptical 
Gospels,  represented  as  exercising  an  influence  on,  and  stand 
ing  in  a  relation  to,  Christ,  quite  inconsistent  with  His  imper 
sonal  Humanity  and  proper  Deity.  "He  was  led  by  the 
Spirit  into  the  wilderness  to  be  tempted  of  the  devil  "  (Matt, 
iv.  1 ;  Mark  i.  12 ;  Luke  iv.  1)  ;  and  afterwards  "  returned  in 
the  power  of  the  Spirit  into  Galilee"  (Luke  iv.  14).  Our 
Lord  himself  appropriates  the  words  of  Isaiah  :  "The  Spirit 
of  the  Lord  is  upon  me,  because  He  hath  anointed  me,"  &c. 
(Luke  iv.  18)  ;  and  the  writer  of  the  first  Gospel  declares 
that  in  Him  was  fulfilled  the  promise  of  God  through  the 
same  prophet,  "  I  will  put  My  Spirit  upon  Him,"  &c.  (Matt, 
xii.  18);  Christ  also  claims  to  "cast  out  devils  by  God's 
Spirit"  (Matt.  xii.  28).  St.  Peter,  when  proclaiming  the 
Gospel  message,  puts  prominently  forward  God's  having 
"  anointed  Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  with 


CONFLICTING   AUTHORITIES.  105 

power  "  (Acts  x.  38).  And  the  teaching  of  St.  Peter  on  this 
point  is  the  more  important,  since  to  him  had  been  revealed 
the  fact,  that  Jesus  was  "  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  Living 
God"  (Matt.  xvi.  16).  He  was  not  likely  to  go  astray,  or  to 
fall  short,  in  apprehending  the  true  character  and  dignity  of 
our  Lord's  Being,  and  yet  he  does  not  hesitate  to  affirm, 
"  God  anointed  "  Him  with  "  the  Holy  Spirit  and  power."  * 

There  is,  therefore,  a  want  of  unison  between  the  doctrine 
which  Mr.  Liddon  believes  to  be  set  forth  in  the  beolimino- 

o  o 

of  the  fourth  Gospel,  and  the  doctrine  which  is  exhibited  by 
St.  Peter  and  the  three  earlier  Evangelists.  The  device  of 
a  distinction  between  Christ  as  God,  and  Christ  as  man,  is 
not  much  to  the  purpose ;  for  Mr.  Liddon  tells  us  our  Lord's 
Manhood  was  not  personal,  but  was  taken  into  closest  union 
with  his  Deity ;  and  he  clings  to  "  the  fact,  upon  which  St. 
John  insists  with  such  prominence,  that  our  Lord's  Godhead 
is  the  seat  of  His  Personality "  (p.  259)  ;  and  so  we  are 
brought  face  to  face  with  the  conclusion,  God  led  God,  and 
anointed  God  with  God  !  Surely,  unless  we  are  content  to 
resign  our  reason  and  judgment  in  deference  to  some  higher 
authority,  a  choice  between  the  guidance  of  the  fourth  Gos 
pel,  and  the'prior  narrations,  is  here  forced  upon  us.  From 
which  are  we  to  collect  our  dogmatic  knowledge  of  Christ's 
personal  rank?  The  writer  of  the  last  Gospel  does  more 
than  supplement  his  predecessors :  if  the  orthodox  interpre 
tation  of  his  language  is  right,  he  corrects  them,  and  takes 
ground  which  convicts  them  not  merely  of  reservation,  but 
of  ignorance  and  blundering,  on  a  vital  point.  For  Protest 
ants,  who  hold  Scripture  to  be  the  Divine  and  sufficient 
Itule  of  Faith,  there  is  no  way  of  escape  :  they  must  either 
esteem  the  Logos  doctrine  a  misty  speculation,  or  depress 

*  In  Acts  i.  2,  Jesus  is  said  either  to  have  "commanded,"  or  "  chosen" 
the  Apostles,  through  or  by  means  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  where  the  difficulty 
attaching  to  orthodox  faith  is  not  removed,  but  brought  into  view,  by  the 
widely  accepted  commentary  :  "  Jesus  as  man  is  represented  as  acting 
by  the  authority,  and  with  the  co-operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Where 
was  the  Infinitely  Divine  Person,  the  Logos  ? 


106  CONTRAST   BETWEEN   SYNOPTIC 

other  portions  of  the  New  Testament  while  they  exalt  what, 
they  conceive  to  be  a  contribution  from  St.  John.* 

And,  when  we  are  examining  the  Scripture  testimony  re 
specting  Christ's  nature,  it  is  scarcely  possible  for  us  to  pass 
by  unnoticed  the  strong  contrast  between  the  Synoptic  and 
the  supposed  Johannine  accounts  of  the  time  and  manner  in 
which  our  Lord's  Messiahship  was  freely  made  known.  In 
Matt.  xvi.  16,  Peter's  confession,  "  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the 
Son  of  the  living  God,"  is  declared  to  have  been  prompted 
by  a  revelation  from  Heaven.  The  narratives  in  Mark  viii. 
29  and  Luke  ix.  20  do  not  add  the  words  the  Son,  &c.,t  but  in 
them,  as  well  as  in  the  first  Gospel,  the  confession  is  followed 
by  an  injunction  from  Christ  to  conceal  the  fact  of  His  Mes 
siahship.  The  fourth  Gospel  is  decidedly  at  variance  with 
these  representations.  In  the  first  and  third  chapters,  our 
Lord's  Messianic  character  and  authority  are  recognized  and 
acknowledged  by  John  the  Baptist,  with  an  amplitude,  repe 
tition,  and  precision,  which  aggravate  to  the  utmost  the  dif 
ficulty  involved  in  the  message  which  the  fame  of  Christ's 
miracles  induced  John  to  send  from  the  prison  :  "  Art  Thou 
He  that  should  come,  or  do  we  look  for  another  ? "  (Matt, 
xi.  3 ;  Luke  vii.  19.)  In  the  first  chapter,  Andrew  tells  his 
brother  Simon  Peter,  "  We  have  found  the  Messias "  (ver. 
41)  ;  Philip  conveys  in  \  effect  the  same  information  to 
Nathaniel  (ver.  45) ;  and  from  Nathaniel  the  acknowledg- 

*  The  Church  of  England  is  not  in  this  dilemma,  because,  by  the  im 
position  of  Articles  and  Creeds,  she  practically  denies  the  sufficiency  of 
Holy  Scripture  as  a  Kule  of  Faith,  notwithstanding  certain  well  known 
expressions  in  her  theory.  Her  weakness  is,  that  she  combines  two 
inconsistent  and  mutually  exclusive  principles. 

t  Mr.  Liddon  in  his  first  Lecture  (p.  10)  builds  an  argument  on  the 
supposition  that  Peter's  confession  was  made  in  the  precise  words  given 
by  Matthew.  To  the  words  which  Mark  and  Luke  omit,  he  attaches 
very  great  importance.  But  how  came  two  Evangelists,  one  of  whom 
was,  according  to  early  tradition,  the  companion  and  reporter  of  Peter, 
to  leave  out  of  their  records  a  statement  of  great  significance,  on  a  sub 
ject  of  the  highest  interest?  Whose  report  is  the  strictly  accurate  one  ? 
John  vi.  69  differs  from  all  the  other  accounts,  the  true  reading  there 
being,  Thou  art  the  Holy  (One]  of  God. 


AND    JOHANNIC   DOCTRINES.  107 

meiit  is  extorted,  "Rabbi,  Thou  art  the  Son  of  God;  Thou 
art  the  King  of  Israel"  (ver.  49).  Arid,  on  the  part  of  Christ 
himself,  there  was  no  delay,  carefulness,  or  reserve,  in  advanc 
ing  His  pretensions.  At  the  opening  of  His  public  life, 
before  John  was  cast  into  prison  (iii.  24),  He  acted  and  spoke 
unreservedly;  expelled  the  money  changers  from  the  Tem 
ple  ;  foretold  His  own  death  and  rising  again  (chaps,  ii.  and 
iii.,  comp.  Matt.  xxi.  12,  xvi.  21,  and  parallels  in  Mark  and 
Luke)  ;  avowed  to  Nicodemus  His  work,  office,  and  Divine 
Sonship  (iii.),  and  before  the  earliest  period  to  which  Peter's 
confession  of  the  Messiahship,  and  the  accompanying  charge, 
to  tell  no  man  that  he  was  Jesus  the  Christ,  can  be  referred, 
declared  explicitly  to  the  woman  of  Sychar,  that  He  was  the 
Messiah  (iv.  26),  and  left  her  fellow-citizens  with  the  knowl 
edge  that  He  was  indeed  the  Saviour  of  the  world  (ver.  42). 
Now,  no  man  whose  prejudices  are  sufficiently  moderate  to 
permit  him  to  give  a  verdict  according  to  evidence  can  deny 
the  serious  irreconcilable  discrepancy  into  which  diversity 
of  narrative  here  passes.  On  the  common-sense  principle  of 
preferring  three  witnesses  to  one,  we  are  unavoidably  con 
ducted  to  an  unfavorable  appreciation  of  the  fourth  Gospel's 
historical  fidelity,  and  are  confirmed  in  the  suspicion  that  the 
writer  made  many  statements  from  a  speculative  and  ideal, 
rather  than  from  a  properly  historical,  point  of  view.  But 
though  his  idealism  may  be  hazy,  and  not  unfolded  with 
firmness  of  grasp  and  entire  consistency  of  detail,  he  must, 
nevertheless,  be  allowed  to  have  had  a  good  general  notion 
of  his  own  sentiments  and  object;  and,  if  he  designed  in  his 
prologue  to  teach,  that  the  Word  who  arrayed  Himself  in  a 
human  vesture  was  an  Everlasting  and  Co-equal  Person  in 
the  Divine  Substance,  he  would  not  be  likely  to  bring  to  the 
front  expressions  in  which  Christ  himself  avows  inferiority, 
subordination,  and  dependence.  It  is  quite  certain,  however, 
he  does  bring  forward  such  expressions  (expressions  which  I 
shall  hereafter  have  occasion  to  quote),  and  his  openly  alleged 
aim  is,  not  to  prove  Jesus  is  God,  but  to  produce  the  belief 
that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God  (xx.  31).  The  am- 


108  DESIGN    OF   THE   LATEST   EVANGELIST. 

biguity  caused  by  the  omission  of  the  article  before  dsog  (i.  1) 
is  not,  therefore,  the  sole  reason  for  concluding  the  last  Evan 
gelist  did  not  intend  to  affirm  the  Word's  absolute  Deity. 
The  reasonable  supposition  that  he  knew,  with  some  degree 
of  exactitude,  his  own  meaning,  and  did  not  unwittingly  fur 
nish  materials  for  his  own  refutation,  leads  to  the  same  con 
clusion.  And,  further,  if  he  aimed  at  investing  the  Word 
as  a  Personal  Being,  with  the  entire  attributes  of  Godhead, 
he  cannot  rationally  be  cleared  of  "  an  error  at  issue  with  the 
first  truth  of  Monotheism ; "  because  reason  assuredly,  and 
perhaps  dogmatic  theology  likewise,  pronounces  to  be  inad 
missible  the  only  interpretation  of  his  language  which  would 
then  satisfy  Monotheism;  namely,  the  Word  was  the  God 
with  Whom  the  Word  was. 


CHAPTER  Y. 

Discussion  of  texts  supposed  "  expressly  to  assert  the  doctrine  of  Our 
Lord's  Divinity ;  "  viz.,  1  John  v.  20 ;  Titus  ii.  13  ;  Romans  ix.  5 ; 
Philippians  ii.  6-11. — Examination  of  Mr.  Liddon's  exposition  of 
passages  in  the  Epistles  to  the  Colossians  and  Hebrews,  and  in  the 
Apocalypse. 

AMOXG  "  the  comparatively  few  texts  expressly  asserting  the 
doctrine  of  Our  Lord's  Divinity  "  Mr.  Liddon  reckons  1  John 
v.  20  ;  Titus  ii.  13 ;  Rom.  ix.  5 ;  in  which  he  believes  Christ 
to  be  designated  —  the  True  God ;  the  Great  God ;  and 
God  over  all,  Blessed  for  ever.  If  these  epithets  were  descrip 
tions  of  Christ,  they  would,  undoubtedly,  proclaim  His  Deity, 
but  there  is  not  adequate  reason  for  supposing  them  to  refer 
to  Him.  Xo  person  acquainted  with  Greek  will  deny  that 
the  verbal  constructions  in  the  texts  in  question  are  ambigu 
ous,  and  do  not  determine  whether  the  titles  are  to  be  under 
stood  as  descriptions  of  Christ,  or  descriptions  of  the  Eternal 
Father.  Not  to  mention  other  scholars  whose  judgment  is 
entitled  to  weight,  Winer,  the  standard  authority  on  the 
Grammar  of  the  Greek  Testament,  pronounces  decidedly 
against  the  notion  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  necessarily, 
or  more  probably  designated,  in  either  of  the  three  texts. 
All  that  can  be  said  in  behalf  of  Mr.  Liddon's  interpretation 
is,  that  the  wording,  simply  as  such,  admits  it,  and  that  eccle 
siastical  writers,  after  A.D.  190,  for  the  most  part  approve  of 
it.  But  the  only  testimony  worth  attention,  Ante-Nicene 
testimony,  is,  in  the  form  in  which  it  has  come  down  to  us, 
nothing  more  than  the  opinions  of  a  few  individuals  who  had 
a  dogmatic  purpose  to  serve.  It  is  far  too  scanty  and  one 
sided  to  be  considered  duly  representative  of  the  age,  and, 
in  relation  to  texts  employed  in  controversy,  is,  in  Protestant 
eyes,  peihaps  less  valuable  than  the  private  opinion  of  Mr. 


110  IMPROBABILITY   THAT    CHRIST   IS   STYLED 

Liddon.  An  interpretation  which  the  natural  force  of  lan 
guage  does  not  demand,  and  the  Scriptures  themselves  do  not 
show  to  be  probable,  is  not  confirmed  by  references  to  two  or 
three  Fathers  of  the  third  century. 

The  Anglican  Version  of  1  John  v.  20  obscures  the  sense 
by  inserting  the  word  even.  The  sacred  writer  teaches : 
"  The  Son  of  God  has  come,  and  has  given  us  an  understand 
ing  that  we  may  know  Him  Who  is  True  (literally,  the 
True),  and  we  are  in  Him  Who  is  True,  (being)  in  His  Son 
Jesus  Christ.  This  is  the  True  God  and  Eternal  Life."  The 
concluding  sentence  more  fully  defines  the  True  One,  in 
Whom  we  are,  through  being  in  His  Son  Jesus  Christ.*  To 
be  in  God  is  to  have  a  reverent  and  filial  love  towards  Him, 
and  to  be  the  objects  of  His  approving  love;  and  in  this 
condition  faithful  Christians  are,  through  being  in  Christ,  that 
is,  through  believing  in  Christ,  and  being  members  of  that 
Church  or  Society  in  which  Christ  is,  by  Divine  gift  and 
decree,  Lord  and  Head.  The  sense  is  plain  enough  to 
unbiassed  minds ;  indeed,  the  only  consistent  method  of 
escaping  it  is  by  supposing  God  to  be  the  unexpressed  nomi 
native  to  has  given  /  and  the  True  to  be  a  title  of  Christ,  — 
a  conjecture  advocated  by  Bishop  Burgess,  and  quoted  with 
approval  by  Bloomfield.  Throughout  the  Epistle  God,  and 
the  Son  of  God,  are  clearly  distinguished,  and  spoken  of  as 
two  individuals,  —  persons  in  the  intelligible,  and  not  in  the 
ecclesiastical  acceptation.  In  v.  11  God  is  declared  to  be  the 
Giver,  and  His  Son  the  channel  of  eternal  life :  "  God  has 
given  unto  us  eternal  life,  and  this  life  is  in  His  Son  "  (comp. 
Rom.  vi.  23,  where  the  original  is  in  Christ  Jesus  our 
Lord}.  God,  the  Father,  is  Eternal  Life  (that  is,  the  Author 
and  Source  of  Eternal  life),  in  the  higher  and  primary  sense, 
and  the  True  God  is  an  epithet  which  nothing  short  of  imper 
ative  grammatical  construction  can  justify  us  in  understand- 

*  The  fully  expressed  meaning  undoubtedly  is  :  "  That  \ve  may  know 
the  True  (God)  ;  and  we  are  in  the  True  (God),"  &c.  There  is  no  identi 
fication  of  Nature  and  Substance  between  the  True  God  and  His  Son.  For 
the  phrase,  in  God,  see  1  John  iv.  13-16. 


"  THE   TRUE   GOD  "    IN   I    JOHN   V.    20.  Ill 

ing  of  another  than  Him  (comp.  John  xvii.  3  ;  1  Thess. 
i.  9, 10). 

The  venturesome  allegation,  "  St.  John's  picture  of  Christ's 
work,  in  this  first  Epistle,  leads  up  to  the  culminating  state 
ment  that  Jesus  himself  is  the  True  God  and  the  Eternal 
Life  "  (p.  239),  will  be  appreciated  as  it  deserves  by  careful 
readers  of  the  Epistle.  Mr.  Liddon  denies  that  the  interpre 
tation  he  contends  for  effaces  the  distinction  between  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  "After  having  distinguished  the  Trite 
from  His  Son,  St.  John,  by  a  characteristic  turn,  simply 
identifies  the  Son  with  the  True  God.  To  refer  this  sentence 
to  the  Father,  Who  has  been  twice  called  the  True,  would  be 
unmeaning  repetition.  ...  St.  John  does  not  say,  This  is  the 
Father,  but  This  is  the  True  God.  The  True  God  is  the 
Divine  Essence,  in  opposition  to  all  creatures.  The  question 
of  hypostatic  distinctions  within  that  Essence  is  not  here 
before  the  Apostle.  Our  being  in  the  True  God  depends  on 
our  being  in  Christ,  and  St.  John  clenches  this  assertion  by 
saying  that  Christ  is  the  True  God  himself."  When  the 
Apostle  made  his  "  characteristic  turn  "  from  the  individual 
Father  to  the  Divine  Essence,  Which  includes  both  Father 
and  Son,  it  is  difficult  to  understand  what  was  before  his 
mind,  if  the  existence  of  hypostatic  distinctions  was  not. 
But  possibly  Mr.  Liddon  means  that  the  Apostle  reckoned 
on  his  readers'  knowledge  of  a  dogma  prominent  in  the 
Church's  oral  teaching,  and  therefore  did  not  feel  called  upon 
to  elucidate  a  distinction  which  was  sufficiently  familiar  and 
simple  to  be  gathered  from  the  passing  allusion  of  an  ambig 
uous  phrase. 

The  pronoun  (OVTOS)  this  is  sometimes  to  be  joined,  not 
with  the  nearer,  but  with  the  more  remote  antecedent,  a  fact 
illustrated  by  John  vi.  48-50;  Acts.  iv.  11 ;  2  John,  ver.  7. 
After  laying  down  the  general  rule,  that  nearness  of  position 
does  not  decide  the  pronoun's  reference,  Winer  remarks 
(  Grammar  of  the  New  Testament,  &c.,  Sec.  23) :  "  In  1  John 
v.  20,  this  is  the  True  God  refers  to  God,  not  Christ 
(which  immediately  precedes),  as  the  older  theologians,  OR 


112  "THE  GREAT  GOD  '  IN  TITUS  n.  13. 

doctrinal  considerations,  maintained :  for,  in  the  first  place, 
True  God  is  a  constant  exclusive  epithet  of  the  Father ; 
and,  secondly,  a  warning  against  idolatry  follows,  and  True 
God  is  invariably  contrasted  with  idols"  In  the  earlier  part 
of  section  34,  Winer  again  alludes  to  the  text  and  says : 
'•'•The  True  stands  for  God  ;  the  notion  is  grammatically  com 
plete,  and  the  individual  specially  meant  in  Biblical  diction 
is  to  be  ascertained  from  other  passages." 

In  Titus  ii.  13,  our  Authorized  Version  inaccurately  puts 
the,  glorious  appearing  for  appearing  of  the  glory  /  in  other 
respects  it  answers  more  truly  to  the  original  than  the  ver 
sion,  "Looking  for  the  blessed  hope  and  appearing  of  the 
glory  of  our  Great  God  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  Who  gave 
Himself  for  us."  Mr.  Liddon  says,  u  The  grammar  appar 
ently,  and  the  context  certainly,  oblige  us  to  recognize  the 
identity  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  and  our  Great  God. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  Christians  are  not  waiting  for  any  man 
ifestation  of  the  Father.  And  He  Who  gave  Himself  for  us 
can  be  none  other  than  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ "  (p.  315). 
Here  the  only  context  to  which  reference  is  made  is,  in  its 
chief  feature,  strangely  misconceived.  The  text  does  not 
speak  of  any  personal  manifestation  or  appearing  of  God, 
but  of  a  manifestation  of  God's  glory.  Did  Mr.  Liddon  for 
get  that  Christ  himself  had  declared  (Matt.  xvi.  27  ;  Mark 
viii.  38  ;  Luke  ix.  26)  that  His  coming  would  be  in  the  glory 
of  His  Father  ?  Did  he  forget  that  St.  Paul  (1  Tim.  vi.  14- 
16)  speaks  of  the  appearing  of  our  X/ord  Jesus  Christ  as  an 
event  "  which  in  His  own  times  He  will  show,  Who  is  the 
Blessed  and  Only  Potentate,  the  King  of  kings,  and  Lord 
of  lords,  Who  only  hath  Immortality,  Whom  no  man  hath 
seen,  nor  can  see  ?  "  The  New  Testament  Scriptures  explic 
itly  announce,  the  appearing  of  Christ  will  be  determined  by 
the  Father's  will,  and  attended  with  an  exhibition  of  the 
Father's  glory.  There  is,  then,  no  sort  of  warrant  for  the 
assertion,  "  The  context  certainly  obliges  us  "  to  identify  the 
Great  God  with  Jesus  Christ.  The  preceding  and  subse 
quent  parts  of  the  Epistle  plainly  recognize  the  distinction 


DOES   IT   EEFER   TO    CHRIST?  113 

between  God  and  Christ.  Only  a  few  sentences  further  on 
(iii.  4-6),  God  our  Saviour  and  Jesus  Christ  our  /Saviour 
are  associated  in  a  manner  which  forcibly  brings  out  the 
truth  that  God  is  in  the  principal  and  absolute,  Christ  in  the 
secondary  and  instrumental  sense,  our  Saviour.  We  may 
give  up  all  attempts  to  ascertain  the  meaning  of  a  canonical 
writer  if  it  is  possible  for  that  writer  to  call  Christ  our  Great 
God,  and  then  with  an  interval  of  half-a-dozen  sentences  to 
tell  us  of  God  imparting  gifts  of  grace  through  Him  who  is 
our  Great  God.  Yet  Mr.  Liddon  is  able  to  cite  from  Bishop 
Ellicott  the  opinion  that  "  the  subsequent  allusion  to  our 
Lord's  profound  Self-humiliation  accounts  for  St.  Paul's 
ascribing  to  Him,  by  way  of  reparation,  a  title  otherwise 
unusual,  that  specially  and  antithetically  marks  His  glory." 
And  while  the  Bishop  is  too  sound  a  scholar  to  hold  there  is 
grammatically  any  thing  more  than  a  presumption  in  favor  of 
this  interpretation,  he  nevertheless,  for  other  reasons,  sees  in 
this  text  a  "  direct,  definite,  and  even  studied  declaration  of 
the  Divinity  of  the  Eternal  Son."  Without  any  disrespect 
to  the  Bishop,  we  may,  I  think,  conclude  that  in  this  instance 
his  wishes  greatly  stimulated  his  perceptive  powers,  and 
prompted  him  to  risk  the  feeblest  of  surmises,  and  the  most 
unfounded  of  assertions.  "  The  grammatical  presumption  " 
arises  from  the  omission  of  the  article  before  /Saviour  ;  but 
the  pronoun  our  (literally  of  us),  gives  that  name  sufficient 
distinctness,  assuming  (what  it  is  impossible  to  deny)  the 
appellation  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  to  have  usually  denoted 
a  person  distinguished  from  God.*  "  The  Saviour  of  us  " 
would  have  been  more  perspicuous,  but  the  article  was  not 
indispensable  to  mark  the  different  individualities  of  the 
Great  God  and  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ.  Winer,  when: 
stating  in-  the  later  editions  of  his  Grammar,  his  deliberate- 

*  When  the  difference  of  office  or  person  is  well  known,  the  definite 
article  is  often  omitted  in  English.  If,  after  visiting  some  public  Insti 
tution,  I  were  to  say,  "  I  saw  the  governor  and  chaplain,"  no  one  would 
imagine  I  meant  only  one  person,  though  grammatically  my  words 
would  bear  that  meaning. 


114 


IN   ROMANS   IX.    5. 


adherence  to  his  previously  expressed  judgment  writes: 
"Doctrinal  conviction,  deduced  from  Paul's  teaching,  that 
the  Apostle  could  not  have  called  Christ  the  Great  God, 
induced  me  to  show  that  at  the  same  time  there  is  no  invin 
cible  obstacle  of  a  grammatical  nature  to  our  taking  the 
words,  and  of  our  Saviour,  &Q.,  as  a  second  subject.  Exam 
ples,  such  as  I  have  quoted  (Sec.  xix.  2),  will  at  once  satisfy 
the  impartial  inquirer  that  the  article  was  not  necessary 
before  Saviour"  The  opinion  which  Winer  here  repeats,  he 
had  already  stated  by  saying :  "  The  article  is  omitted  before 
Saviour,  because  the  word  is  made  definite  by  the  genitive 
of  us,  and  the  apposition  precedes  the  proper  name  (Jesus 
Christ)  :  of  the  Great  God  and  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ" 
Winer  adds,  "  Similar  is  2  Pet.  i.  1,  where  there  is  no  pro 
noun  with  Saviour  / "  a  text  which  Mr.  Liddon  explains  to 
mean  (p.  301),  "He  is  our  God  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ;" 
although  in  verse  2,  a  part  of  the  same  sentence,  God  and 
Jesus  our  Lord  are  indisputably  distinguished  from  each 
other. 

Horn.  ix.  5  receives  a  good  deal  of  Mr.  Liddon's  attention, 
and  in  three  lengthy  notes  he  defends  the  mistaken  punctua- 
tion  and  consequent  mistranslation,  which  stand  in  our 
Authorized  Version.  The  older  Greek  MSS.,  being  almost 
entirely  unpunctuated,  are  no  guides  in  a  case  where  differ 
ences  of  punctuation  entail  differences  of  meaning.  Any  stop 
of  greater  length  than  a  comma,  after  the  word  flesh,  makes 
the  final  clause  of  the  verse  an  independent  statement  concern 
ing  God  the  Father.  Lachmann,  Tischendorf,  Jowett,  and 
many  other  critical  editors  and  expositors,  prefer  the  stopping 
which  awards  the  ascription  of  Supreme  Deity  and  Eternal 
Blessedness  to  the  Almighty ;  and  suppose  the  Apostle  to 
have  added  to  the  list  of  Jewish  privileges  a  thankful  recog 
nition  of  His  goodness  and  power  by  Whom  those  privileges 
had  been  bestowed  —  He  who  is  God  over  all  (is)  blessed  for 
ever.  Such  a  recognition  of  the  Divine  bounty  and  Omnipo 
tence  is  a  natural  and  appropriate  appendix  to  the  mention 
of  advantages  among  which  Christ's  birth  in  our  nature  was 


THE   THOUGHT   IN   ST.    PAUL'S   MIND.  115 

included.  There  is  nothing  in  the  verbal  construction  of  the 
verse  to  settle  the  application  of  the  final  clause.  Grammat 
ically  it  may  be  a  continued  description  of  Christ,  or  an 
independent  proposition  relating  to  God.  The  omission  of 
the  verb  substantive  accords  with  usage,  and  presents  no  diffi 
culty.  In  translating  Greek  into  English,  the  word  is  has 
very  frequently  to  be  supplied.  Assertions  about  "  the  nat 
ural  meaning  of  the  passage,"  and  carpings  at  "  anti- theolog 
ical  interest,"  are  utterly  misplaced,  and  in  Mr.  Liddon 
peculiarly  unbecoming.  He  may  be  most  profoundly  con 
vinced  of  the  truth  of  his  own  views,  and  the  soundness  of 
his  own  reasonings,  but  his  book  is  pervaded  by  prejudg- 
ments,  and  he  is  the  last  man  who  should  accuse  others  of 
bias.  As  Bampton  Lecturer,  under  voluntary  obligation  to 
vindicate  a  particular  dogma,  grammatical  possibility  may  be 
to  him  proof  enough  for  any  interpretation  which  can  be 
turned  to  account,  and  he  may  quite  conscientiously  believe, 
when  verbal  ambiguity  renders  two  or  more  senses  admis 
sible,  the  true  sense  must  be  that  which  best  suits  his  object. 
But  the  fact  is  patent ;  men  who  are,  at  the  very  least,  his 
equals  in  every  qualification  entitled  to  respect,  unhesitatingly 
affirm  the  interpretation  which  he  refuses  to  allow. 

If  there  were  no  other  considerations  to  influence  our  de 
cision,  the  arguments  on  which  Mr.  Liddon  relies  might  have 
some  little  weight ;  but,  as  the  case  actually  stands,  they  are 
singularly  insufficient.  He  thinks  the  concluding  words  of 
the  verse  must  be  referred  to  Christ,  in  order  to  complete  the 
antithesis  implied  in  the  expression  as  to  the  -flesh.  The 
answer  is,  antithesis,  as  such,  may  not  have  been  the  leading 
thought  in  the  Apostle's  mind,  but  simply  limitation.  By 
human  descent  and  family  kinship,  Christ  belonged  to  the 
Jews.  To  that  extent  He  was  from  them,  but  to  that  extent 
only.  There  was  a  higher  spiritual  origin,  and  a  more  uni 
versal  relationship,  which  had  no  proper  connection  with 
privileges  distinctively  Jewish.  The  higher  and  wider  as 
pects  of  Christ's  Being  are  glanced  at  through  restrictive 
terms,  but  not  defined.  A  few  lines  before  the  text  under 


116  POSITION   OF   THE    ADJECTIVE 

discussion,  when  St.  Paul  calls  the  Israelites  his  kinsmen  as 
to  the  flesh,  he  does  not  complete  the  antithesis;  and  again, 
in  1  Corinthians  x.  18,  when  he  speaks  of  Israel  as  to  the 
flesh,  he  does  not  unfold  the  idea  which  the  limiting  phrase 
suggests.  And  in  Romans  i.  4,  where  the  contrast  between 
the  bodily  and  spiritual  parts  of  Christ's  Being  is  expressed, 
there  is  no  assertion  that  He  is  God  over  all,  blessed  for  ever, 
but  a  description  of  a  very  different  kind,  which  clearly  dis 
tinguishes  Him  from  God.  "  As  to  the  flesh,  He  is  the  seed 
of  David;  as  to  the  spirit  of  holiness  (that  is,  His  holy 
spiritual  nature),  He  is  mightily  show^n  to  be  the  Son  of 
God,  by  the  resurrection  from  the  dead."  The  resurrection 
of  our  Lord  from  the  dead  is  by  St.  Paul  frequently  and  uni 
formly  attributed  to  the  power  of  God  the  Father ;  and  in  the 
commencing  paragraph  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  as 
well  as  throughout  the  Epistle,  distinction  between  God  and 
Christ  is  unmistakably  indicated. 

Another  of  Mr.  Liddon's  arguments  is,  that  in  the  text  in 
question  the  word  blessed  is  put  after  the  name  God,  whereas 
in  the  doxologies  of  both  the  Septuagint  and  the  New  Testa 
ment  it  precedes  the  name.  On  this  fact  great  stress  is  laid ; 
but,  if  the  position  of  the  adjective  were  peculiarly  irregular, 
the  New  Testament  has  too  many  instances  of  irregular 
arrangement,  for  irregularity  to  be  a  safe  ground  of  inference. 
Olshausen,  an  orthodox  and  able  expositor,  considers  the  posi 
tion  of  blessed  to  be  of  no  importance ;  and  Winer,  who  on 
such  a  point  is  no  mean  judge,  says  (Sec.  Ixi.  3)  :  "  Only  an 
empirical  expositor  could  regard  this  antecedent  position  as 
an  unalterable  rule;  for,  when  the  Subject  constitutes  the 
principal  notion,  especially  when  it  is  antithetical  to  another 
Subject,  the  Predicate  may  and  must  be  placed  after  it 
(comp.  Ps.  Ixvii.  19  Sept.).*  In  Romans  ix.  5,  if  God  isre- 

*  Mr.  Liddon,  if  I  understand  him  rightly,  objects  against  Winer's 
reference  to  the  Septuagint  67th  Psalm  (Eng.  Ver.  68th),  that  the  read 
ing,  not  being  literally  after  the  Hebrew,  is  probably  corrupt.  But  both 
the  Vatican  and  Alexandrine  MSS.  have  the  adjective  presumed  to  be 
interpolated,  and  variations  from  the  Hebrew  Text  are  very  common  in 
the  Septuagint. 


NEW   TESTAMENT   USAGE   OF   THE   PHRASE.  117 

ferred  to,  the  position  of  the  words  is  quite  appropriate,  and 
even  indispensable,  as  some  critics  have  pointed  out." 

A  remark  with  which  Mr.  Liddon  concludes  one  of  his 
notes  is,  I  should  imagine,  quite  original,  and  is  certainly 
unanswerable.  He  supposes  that,  if  the  reading  were  so 
altered  as  almost  to  compel  the  reference  of  the  final  clause 
to  Christ,  the  reference  would  not  be  disputed.  "  We  may 
be  very  certain  that,  if  lit},  narrow  Oso^  (God  over  all),  could 
be  proved  to  be  an  unwarranted  reading,  no  scholar,  however 
Socinianizing  his  bias,  would  hesitate  to  say  that  6  uv 
tvlopiTog,  &c.  (lie  who  is  blessed,  &c.),  should  be  referred  to 
the  proper  name  which  precedes  it"  (p.  314). 

The  reasons  against  the  interpretation  for  which  the  Bamp- 
ton  Lecturer  contends  are,  taken  together,  amply  sufficient 
to  decide  the  doubt  which  mere  verbal  construction  admits. 
Already,  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  (i.  25),  St.  Paul  had 
applied  to  the  Almighty  the  phrase  blessed  for  ever,  and  in  2 
Corinthians  xi.  31  he  gives  the  same  words  the  same  applica 
tion.  The  whole  phrase  is  never  by  any  New  Testament 
writer  used  of  Christ,  and  Christ  is  never  called  whoyrpog . 
There  are  other  words  descriptive  of  blessedness,  but  that 
particular  word  is  retained  for  the  One  God  and  Father  alone. 
Mr.  Liddon  tries  to  explain  this  fact  by  observing :  "  as 
regards  kv^Qfrpog,  the  remarkable  fewness  of  doxologies 
addressed  to  Christ  might  account  for  the  omission."  But 
if  the  sacred  writers  knew  our  Lord  to  be  truly  God,  identi 
cal  in  Essence  with  the  Father,  why  should  doxologies 
addressed  to  Him  be  remarkably  few,  and  destitute  of  a 
term  which  common  usage  had  appropriated  to  God  ?  The 
omission  would  not,  in  itselfj  be  decisive  against  real  reasons 
on  the  other  side,  but  it  outweighs  all  the  pretexts  which  Mr. 
Liddon  has  been  able  to  put  forward. 

After  the  allusion  to  "  the  remarkable  fewness  of  doxolo 
gies  addressed  to  Christ,"  the  passage  in  a  subsequent  part 
of  the  same  Lecture  (p.  328),  speaking  of  "  thanksgivings 
and  doxologies  poured  forth  to  the  praise  of  Jesus  Christ,'* 
should  not  have  been  permitted  to  remain.  The  only  texts 


118  SUBORDINATION   OP   CHRIST   IMPLIED. 

referred  to  in  justification  of  that  passage  are  Romans  ix.  5, 
perhaps  xvi.  27 ;  1  Timothy  i.  12 ;  the  latter  of  which  is  an 
expression  of  gratitude  to  Christ,  immediately  preceded  by 
the  mention  of  God,  and  followed  at  a  very  brief  interval 
by  a  formal  doxology  to  the  King  of  the  Ages,  Incorruptible, 
Invisible,  alone  God. 

The  description,  God  over  all,  cannot  be  understood  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  without  violence  to  the  analogy  of  St. 
Paul's  doctrine,  and  inconsistence  with  his  habitual  use  of 
language.*  In  Romans  iii.  29,  30,  he  reminds  us  the  One 
God  is  God  of  both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  and  so  implies  His 
highest  dominion  over  all  men ;  and,  in  xi.  36,  he  asserts  the 
exclusive  supremacy  of  God  the  Father,  by  declaring,  of 
(from)  Him,  and  through  Him,  and  to  Him,  are  all  things. 
Elsewhere,  he  calls  God  the  only  God,  and  the  Blessed  and 
Only  Potentate  (Romans  xvi.  27 ;  1  Timothy  i.  17 ;  vi.  15). 
He  tells  us  "  That  there  is  to  us  (Christians)  but  One  God, 
the  Father,  of  (from)  Whom  are  all  things,  and  we  for  Him ; 
and  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  through  whom  are  all  things,  and 
we  through  him  "  (1  Cor.  viii.  4-6)  ;  and  again  that  there  is  One 
God  and  Father  of  all,  Who  is  over  all,  &c. ;  and,  yet  again, 
that  God  is  the  Head  of  Christ  (Eph.  iv.  6 ;  1  Cor.  xi.  3). 

A  number  of  other  passages  might  be  cited,  showing  the 
subordination  of  Christ,  and  the  consequent  improbability 
that  St.  Paul  would  term  him  God  over  all ;  and  almost 
every  page  of  the  Apostle's  writings  might  be  appealed  to 
for  proof  that,  in  his  view,  God  and  Christ  were  distinct 
individuals,  possessing  different  natures,  and  not  Forms  in 
One  and  the  same  Supreme,  Self-existent  Essence ;  and, 
although  the  term  Qeog  (God),  may,  without  the  article, 
mean  less  than  absolute  Deity,  yet  it  is  not,  in  the  diction  of 
St.  Paul,  once  given  simply,  and  without  qualification,  to 
Christ.  The  received  reading  in  Acts  xx.  28,  and  also  in  1 
Tim.  iii.  16,  is  generally  admitted  to  be  incorrect ;  in  Titus  ii. 

*  "  Had  St.  Paul  ever  spoken  of  Christ  as  God,  he  would  many  times 
have  spoken  of  Him  as  such,  not  once  only,  and  that  by  accident."  — 
Professor  Jowett's  Commentary. 


IN  THE  APOSTLE'S  USUAL  LANGUAGE.  119 

13,  the  Great  God  is  the  Eternal  Father,  and  the  only  other 
text  in  which  St,  Paul  has  been  imagined  to  assert  Christ's 
Deity  in  direct  terms  is  Rom.  ix.  5.  And,  in  handling  this 
text,  Mr.  Liddon  himself  is  driven,  when  he  looks  at  the 
evidence  of  the  Son's  subordination  and  separate  personality, 
to  invoke  the  subtle  distinction  between  the  Father  person 
ally,  and  the  Divine  Substance  Which  is  assumed  to  embrace 
both  Father  and  Son.  St.  Paul,  he  observes,  "  does  not  call 
our  Lord  o  Ini  Ttdvxwv  Qso^  (the  God  over  all)  —  the  article 
would  lay  the  expression  open  to  a  direct  Sabellian  construc 
tion.^  St.  Paul  says  that  Christ  is  Ini  ndvTwv  0£o<^  (God 
over  all),  where  the  Father,  of  course,  is  not  included  among 
the  all  things  (1  Cor.  xv.  27) ;  and  the  sense  corresponds 
substantially  with  Acts  x.  36,  Rom.  x.  12.  It  asserts  that 
Christ  is  internal  to  the  Divine  Essence,  without  denying  His 
personal  distinctness  from,  or  His  filial  relation  to,  the  Father." 
Now,  here,  the  texts  assumed  to  have  a  corresponding 
sense  are  not  parallel.  The  title  Lord  is  not  equivalent  to 
God,  except  when  used  of  Jehovah,  the  Almighty  One.  It 
is  a  title  which,  taken  alone,  describes  dignity,  but  does  not 
fix  the  rank  and  degree  of  the  dignity,  and  nothing  can  be 
clearer  than  that  it  does  not,  in  connection  with  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ,  denote  Deity.  The  repeated  expression,  The 
God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  manner 
in  which  St.  Paul  (1  Cor.  viii. ;  Eph.  iv.)  individualizes  the 
One  God  and  the  one  Lord,  prove  the  term  Lord,  when 
applied  to  Christ,  not  to  mean  God.  Christ  may  be,  as  in 
Acts  x.  36,  called  Lord  of  all,  —  that  is,  of  both  Jews  and 

*  In  a  previous  note,  Mr.  Liddon,  after  stating  that  thg  text  was  un 
derstood  in  the  early  Church  by  Iienaeus,  Tertullian,  and  others,  to 
apply  to  Jesus  Christ,  adds :  "  It  seems  probable  that  any  non-employ 
ment  of  so  striking  a  passage  by  the  Catholics,  during  their  earlier  con 
troversial  struggles  with  the  Arians,  is  to  be  attributed  to  their  fear 
of  being  charged  with  construing  it  in  a  Sabellian  sense."  After  the 
middle  of  the  second  century,  controversial  wants,  and  controversial 
fears,  undoubtedly  had  great  influence,  and  regulated  interpretation. 

A  far  less  probable,  but  not  wholly  improbable,  mode  of  punctuation 
and  rendering,  is  :  Of  whom  came  Christ  according  to  the  flesh,  who  is  over 
all.  God  is  blessed  for  ever. 


120          VIEWS   OF   STANLEY   AND   DR.    WORDSWORTH. 

Gentiles,  without  being  God  of  all.  t  In  Rom.  x.  12,  it  is  very 
far  from  evident  Christ  is  designated  the  same  X/ord  of  all^ 
being,  in  that  connection,  most  probably  Jehovah,  the  God 
of  both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  "  Who  is  rich  in  mercy,"  and  "  no 
respecter  of  persons."  The  texts,  therefore,  to  which  Mr. 
Liddon  refers,  do  not  in  any  degree  sustain  his  interpretation 
of  Rom.  ix.  5;  and,  as  to  a  difference  of  meaning  between 
o  dsog  and  Osog,  the  difference  is  not  a  puzzling  and  imaginary 
one  between  the  Personal  Father  and  the  Divine  Essence, 
but  (when  the  absence  of  the  Article  is  designed  to  mark  a 
difference)  between  the  God  and  a  god,  —  God  in  the  absolute 
and  exclusive,  and  god  in  an  inferior  and  figurative  sense. 
This  distinction  rarely  appears  in  modern  writings,  but  the 
Old  Testament  Scriptures  exhibit  many  instances  of  it  in  the 
employment  of  the  name  Elohim ;  and  perhaps  it  may  be 
the  key  to  the  meaning  of  a  few  New  Testament  passages, 
where  the  want  of  the  article  before  Osog  creates  an  ambigu 
ity,  and  can  be  explained  neither  by  grammatical  rule  nor 
common  usage.  But  a  nice  discrimination  between  Deity 
as  an  Essence  or  Nature,  and  Deity  in  the  Person  of  the 
Almighty  Father,  is  purely  arbitrary  and  fanciful.  There  is 
no  particle  of  evidence  to  support  it ;  and  if,  in  Mr.  Liddon's 
judgment,  our  Master  Jesus  Christ  could  not  be,  without 
perilous  inaccuracy,  styled  "  the  God  over  all,"  why  does  he 
take  advantage  of  verbal  uncertainty  to  insist  that  Christ  is 
styled  "  the  great  God  "  and  "  the  true  God."  The  presence 
of  the  article  unquestionably  renders  these  latter  expressions 
"  open  to  a  direct  Sabellian  construction." 

In  his  Notes  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  the  Bishop  of 
Lincoln  (Drt  Wordsworth),  considers  that,  in  ix.  5,  6  «V  is 
a  title  of  Jehovah  (comp.  Sept.,  Exod.  iii.  14),  and  should 
receive  a  special  emphasis.  "The  words  contain  a  distinct 
truth,  and  assert  the  eternal  pre-existence  of  Christ,  and  are 
very  appropriately  added  after  the  mention  of  His  Incarna 
tion.  He  Who  came  of  the  Jews,  according  to  the  flesh,  is 
no  other  than  o  ooV,  the  BEING  ONE,  JEHOVAH." 

Dean  Stanley,  on  2  Cor.  xi.  31,  remarks :  "  For  the  doxol- 


GENERAL   SENSE   OF   THE  NEW   TESTAMENT.  121 

ogy,  introduced  by  the  solemn  feeling  of  the  moment,  com 
pare  Rom.  ix.  5,  and  i.  25 " —  intimating,  apparently,  his 
concurrence  with  the  opinion  that  the  clause  in  debate  should 
be  regarded  as  an  ascription  of  praise  to  the  One  God,  the 
Father  Almighty.  He  adds :  "  o  wv  is  used  so  frequently  in 
the  Septuagint,  and  by  Philo,  as  a  translation  for  JEHOVAH, 
that  the  phrase  in  this  passage  and  Rom.  ix.  5,  if  not  used 
precisely  in  that  sense,  at  any  rate  has  reference  to  it." 

If  the  words  are  equivalent  to  Jehovah,  the  independence 
of  the  clause,  and  the  improbability  of  the  conjecture  which 
attaches  it  to  Christ,  are  increased  ;  but  the  New  Testament 
does  not  furnish  one  example  wherein  the  words  are,  with 
any  approach  to  clearness,  a  title  equalling  Jehovah.  The 
more  usual  construction  appears  to  me  to  be  the  true  one, 
and  upon  the  supposition  that  the  passage  has  peculiarities, 
the  article,  though  separated,  may  belong  to  dso^  and  the 
literal  sense  may  be,  The  God  Who  is  over  all,  &c. 

If  we  are  to  gather  the  sense  of  the  New  Testament  from 
a  thorough,  candid,  and  rational  investigation  of  its  contents, 
I  do  not  see  how  we  can  persuade  ourselves  that  1  John  v. 
20,  Titus  ii.  13,  Rom.  ix.  5,  are  descriptions  of  Christ,  and 
assertions  of  his  Godhead.  If  the  decisions  of  an  ecclesias 
tical,  extra-scriptural  authority  are  held  to  impose  doctrines, 
and  to  supersede  rational  judgment  in  the  understanding  of 
Scripture,  then,  of  course,  the  case  is  different ;  but  Mr.  Lid- 
don  has  ventured  upon  Protestant  ground,  and  appeals  to 
the  Bible  as  the  Rule  of  Faith  and  document  of  proof.  On 
this  ground  he  can  make  out  no  claim  to  the  texts  above 
referred  to.  His  attempt  to  claim  them  merely  exposes  his 
weakness,  and  urgent  need  of  direct  evidence  on  behalf  of 
his  dogma,  The  texts  must  be  carried  over  to  the  other  side, 
and  added  to  the  list,  —  already  an  insuperable  barrier  to  the 
conclusiveness  of  merely  Scriptural  arguments  for  our  Lord's 
Deity,  —  the  list  which  denominates  the  Almighty  Father  by 
exclusive  terms,  the  One  God  and  Father;  the  only  true  God; 
the  only  God;  the  Blessed  and  Only  Potentate. 

In  commenting  on  Phil.  ii.  6-11,  a  passage  of  undoubted 
obscurity  and  difficulty,  Mr.  Liddon  contends :  — 


122  THE   PHRASE   "  FORM   OF   GOD." 

"  The  force  of  St.  Paul's  moral  lesson  in  the  whole  passage 
must  depend  upon  the  real  Divinity  of  the  Incarnate  and 
Self-immolating  Christ.  The  point  of  our  Lord's  example 
lies  in  His  emptying  Himself  of  the  glory  or  '  form '  of  his 
Eternal  Godhead.  Worthless,  indeed,  would  have  been  the 
force  of  His  example,  had  He  been  in  reality  a  created  Being, 
who  only  abstained  from  grasping  tenaciously  at  Divine  pre 
rogatives  which  a  creature  could  not  have  arrogated  to  him 
self  without  impious  folly"  (p.  316).  There  is  considerable 
confusion  of  thought  here.  Passing  over,  for  the  moment, 
the  assumption  that  form  of  God  means  "  glory  of  Eternal 
Godhead,"  and  granting  that  the  being  equal  to  God,  or,  as  the 
phrase  would  be  better  translated,  the  being  like,  or  as  God* 
carries  a  corresponding  meaning,  what  room  is  there  for  the 
idea  that  Christ  "abstained  from  grasping  tenaciously  at 
Divine  prerogatives  "?  They  were  His  irrelinquishably.  He 
held  them  by  the  indefeasible  right  of  Essential  Nature. 
Did  St.  Paul  think  so  loosely,  and  write  so  inaccurately,  as 
to  employ,  in  suggesting  mere  suspension  of  manifested  Maj 
esty,  the  expressions,  emptied  himself  /  deemed  it  not  a  thing 
to  be  greedily  seized,  or  appropriated?  t  Tne  reality  of  Deity 
cannot  be  emptied  out ;  for  even  the  Almighty  cannot  divest 
Himself  of  His  own  inherent  perfections.  The  Apostle  did 
not  intend  to  intimate  an  abdication  of  Deity,  and  his 
words  are  ill  suited  to  intimate  the  veiling  of  a  glory  which 
potentially,  and  in  all  its  real  basis,  could  not  be  abandoned. 
And  premising  that  in  relation  to  Divine  mysteries  all  Scrip 
ture  is  true,  and  all  the  Canonical  writers  agreed,  are  we  in  a 

*  Macknight  properly  translates,  to  be  like  God,  and  says :  "  Wliitby 
has  proved  in  the  clearest  manner  that  lea  is  used  adverbially  by  the 
Septuagint  to  express  likeness,  but  not  equality,  the  proper  term  for  which 
is  loov."  This  latter  term  does  not  necessarily,  and  always,  denote 
equality. 

t  This  is  the  more  probable  meaning  of  the  word  rendered  in  the 
Authorized  Version  robbery.  If  the  sense  robbery  is  retained,  St.  Paul's 
statement  would,  from  Mr.  Laddon's  point  of  view,  amount  to  the  truism, 
that  Christ  did  not  think  it  robbery  to  show  Himself  to  be  what  He  really 


PEOBABLE   MEANING   OF   THIS   PHRASE.  123 

position  to  affirm,  Christ  "  emptied  Himself"  of  his  pre-in- 
carnate  glory  ?  In  the  fourth  Gospel,  that  glory  is  declared 
to  have  been  manifested,  and  to  have  shone  forth  in  the  sight 
of  His  disciples  (i.  14;  ii.  11).  How  far  the  exercise  of 
Divine  prerogatives  in  heaven  was  affected  by  the  circum 
stance  of  Christ's  having  emptied  Himself,  and  abstained 
from  grasping  tenaciously  at  them,  I  do  not  dare  to  conjec 
ture.  Mr.  Liddon,  perhaps,  could  say  something  upon  the 
topic,  starting  from  the  position,  "  the  Son  of  Man,  while  yet 
speaking  upon  earth,  was  in  heaven  "  (Johniii.  13)  ;  but,  how 
ever  that  may  be,  if  we  are  to  believe  the  latest  Evangelist, 
we  must  understand  the  phrase  emptied  Himself \  with  abate 
ments.  The  glory  of  the  super-human  nature  was  exhibited 
in  and  through  the  veil  of  flesh.  The  exhibition  was  no 
doubt  on  a  different  stage,  in  a  modified  fashion,  and  before 
a  new  circle  of  spectators,  but  we  are  assured  that  it  took 
place.  Mr.  Liddon  himself  enlarges  (p.  232)  on  the  manner 
in  which  "  St.  John's  writings  "  proclaim  a  showing  forth  of 
the  Divine  glory  in  the  sphere  of  Christ's  earthly  life.  "  The 
Word  reveals  the  Divine  Essence ;  His  Incarnation  makes 
that  Life,  that  Love,  that  Light,  which  is  eternally  resident  in 
God,  obvious  to  souls  that  steadily  contemplate  Himself.  .  .  . 
The  Life,  the  Love,  the  Light,  are  the  'glory'  of  the  Word 
Incarnate  which  His  disciples  '  beheld,'  pouring  its  rays 
through  the  veil  of  His  human  tabernacle.  The  Light,  the 
Love,  the  Life,  constitute  the  '  fulness '  whereof  His  disciples 
received ; "  and  were  therefore,  we  may  presume,  the  glory 
of  which  our  Lord  is  reported  to  have  said  (John  xvii.  22), 
The  glory  which  Thou  gavest  me,  I  have  given  them  (comp. 
verses  5  and  24). 

Mr.  Liddon  perceives  that  form  of  God  is  not  a  descrip 
tion  strictly  synonymous  with  God,  any  more  than  form  of 
a  slave  is  a  description  strictly  synonymous  with  slave.  He 
therefore  considers  uform  of  God  is  apparently  the  mani 
fested  glory  of  Deity,  implying  of  course  the  reality  of  the 
Deity  so  manifested."  But  when  the  fact  has  once  been 
avowed,  that  form  does  not  stand  for  nature,  the  sense  is 


124  FORCE   OF   THE  LANGUAGE   IN 

seen  to  be  too  uncertain  for  any  "of  course"  inductions. 
Granting  exalted  personal  pro-existence  to  be  predicated,  and 
not  representative  capacity  and  authority,  there  is  no  assign 
ment  of  definite,  co-equal  rank.  To  say  one  person  is  in 
the  form  of  another  is  quite  obviously  a  different  thing  from 
saying,  the  two  persons  are  identical  in  nature,  or  stand  in 
the  same  place  and  condition.  Both  the  phrases  employed, 
form  of  God,  and  the  being  like  God,  seem  to  have  a  pur 
posed  and  very  significant  vagueness.  The  subject  of  Christ's 
pre-incarnate  Being  and  dignity  was  before  the  Apostle's 
mind.  If  he  had  been  able  to  aver,  and  had  wished  to  aver, 
that  Christ  was  God,  he  could  have  done  so  in  simple,  straight 
forward  language.  The  scope  of  his  argument  called  for  a 
distinct  indication  of  the  height  from  which  Christ  stooped, 
in  becoming  incarnate.  There  was  every  motive  to  assert  in 
terms  Christ's  Deity,  yet  St.  Paul  deliberately  avoided  the 
assertion,  and  was  content  with  the  glorification  of  indefinite, 
ambiguous  circumlocutions. 

The  use  of  the  Greek  article  is  too  little  a  matter  of  rule 
for  any  satisfactory  argument  to  be  built  upon  its  absence  in 
the  passage  I  am  now  examining.  Its  presence  is  certainly 
not  indispensable  to  show  that  the  Supreme  Being  is  referred 
to  in  Phil.  ii.  6,  but  as  certainly  it  would  not  be  superfluous. 
If  the  article  had  not  been  omitted  before  the  words  form 
and  God,  the  meaning  which  Mr.  Liddon  seeks  in  the  text 
would  have  been  less  occult  and  more  probable.  When,  in 
verse  9,  the  God  by  Whom  Christ  is  highly  exalted  is  named, 
the  article  is  prefixed.  The  form  of  the  God,  and  the  being 
like  the  God,  would  have  been,  in  their  Greek  shape,  expres 
sions  much  better  suited  to  imply  the  dogma  of  Christ's 
Essential  Deity.  As  the  text  stands,  room  is  left  for  doubt 
whether  St.  Paul  may  not  have  intended  to  contrast,  in  very 
general  terms,  a  superhuman,  spiritual,  glorious  existence  with 
a  humble  human  existence  —  a  Divine  form  with  a  servile 
form.  The  latter  expression  does  not  directly  imply  Christ's 
manhood,  which  is  indicated  by  the  subsequent  words,  "  being 
made  in  the  likeness  of  men  j "  and  "  being  found  in  fashion  as 


PHILIPPIANS   II.  6-11.  125 

a  man."  The  same  general  conception,  presented  with  yet 
greater  indefiniteness,  appears  in  2  Cor.  viii.  9,  where  the  Apos 
tle  declares  that  "  Christ,  though  rich,  for  our  sakes  became 
poor."  The  object  in  both  passages  is  to  inculcate,  through 
Christ's  example,  a  moral  lesson  of  humility,  benevolence,  and 
self-denial.  The  Person  and  conduct  of  our  Lord  are  set  forth 
in  their  ethical  aspect,  and  no  well-defined,  accurate  notion  of 
His  p  re-incarnate  condition  and  rank  can  be  fairly  extracted. 
We  cannot  know  more  of  the  Apostle's  mind  than  his  language 
distinctly  imparts.  That  he  did  not  design  to  teach,  either  di 
rectly  or  by  implication,  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  proper  Deity, 
he  makes  abundantly  evident.  Jesus  Christ  and  God  are, 
throughout  his  reasoning,  separate  individual  Beings.  There 
is  no  hint  that  One  Divine  Nature  comprised  them  both. 
God  is  said  to  have  "  highly  exalted  Christ,  and  given  Him  a 
Name  which  is  above  every  Name ;  "  and  in  the  confession  : 
"Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,"  a  tribute  is  paid  "to  the  glory  of 
God  the  Father."  The  Apostle's  words  at  once  recall  his 
positive  and  perspicuous  statement  in  an  earlier  Epistle : 
"  To  us  there  is  but  One  God,  the  Father,  and  one  Lord, 
Jesus  Christ"  (1  Cor.  viii.  4-6). 

If  St.  Paul's  opinions,  when  he  wrote  to  the  Philippians, 
had  risen  to  the  level  of  ecclesiastical  orthodoxy,  he  believed 
Jesus  Christ  to  be  personally  Very  God,  lacking  no  attribute 
of  Godhead ;  and  he  must,  in  such  case,  be  understood  to 
teach  that,  because  God  assumed  a  vesture  of  body,  soul,  and 
spirit,  —  became  as  much  man  as  He  could  without  becom 
ing  a  human  person,  and  submitted  His  impersonal  Humanity 
to  death  upon  the  Cross  —  "therefore  God  highly  exalted 
God,  and  gave  God  a  Name,"  &c.  If  to  any  rational  mind 
this  wears  a  look  of  absurdity,  I  am  not  accountable  for  the 
absurdity.  I  only  state  what  must  have  been  St.  Paul's 
meaning,  supposing  him  to  have  been  able  to  think  consist 
ently,  and  to  have  known  Christ  to  be  truly  God,  "  equal  to 
the  Father  as  touching  His  Godhead."  Should  it  be  said, 
Our  Lord's  Humanity  was  exalted,  the  answer  is,  there  was 
no  human  person  to  exalt ;  and,  if  there  had  been  a  human 


126  THE   PHRASE   IN   COLOSSI ANS   I.  15-17. 

person,  how  could  that  person,  when  taken  into  inseparable 
union  with  Essential  Deity,  be  capable  of  exaltation  at  the 
hands  of  personally  distinct  Essential  Deity? 

If  with  some  MSS.  we  read,  "the  Name  which  is  above 
every  name,"  the  argument  will  not  be  affected.  Whatever 
the  exaltation  and  the  name  are,  the  fact  remains,  that  the 
Apostle  depicts  them  not  as  inalienable  attributes  of  God 
head,  but  as  gifts  bestowed  by  God. 

The  general  diction  of  the  Philippian  Epistle  lends  no  sup 
port  whatever  to  the  notion  that  the  author  saw  in  Christ  a 
second  personal  God,  or  ascribed  to  Him  equality  with  God. 
God  is  the  Object  of  thanksgiving  and  prayer  (i.  3 ;  iv.  6). 
It  is  He  Who,  "  having  begun  a  good  work  in  us,  will  carry 
on  that  work  until  the  day  of  Jesus  Christ "  (i.  6).  "  Fruit  of 
righteousness  is,  through  Christ,  to  His  glory"  (i.  11).  He 
is  the  Source  of  salvation,  and  of  the  energy  in  virtue  of 
which  our  part  in  the  work  of  salvation  is  accomplished 
(i.  28 ;  ii.  13).  He  is  the  inward  Revealer  (iii.  15),  and  the 
primal  Giver  of  peace  (iv.  7,  9).  Of  Him  St.  Paul  writes  : 
"  My  God  will  supply  all  your  need,  according  to  His  riches 
in  glory,  in  (or  by)  Christ  Jesus.  —  To  our  God  and  Father 
be  the  Glory  for  ever  and  ever  "  (iv.  19,  20). 

The  Pauline  benedictory  salutation  (i.  2)  does  not  equalize 
or  identify  God  and  Christ  as  sources  of  grace  and  peace, 
but  by  descriptive  appellation  marks  the  difference  between 
God  our  Father,  and  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  The  name 
Christ  (iv.  13)  is  interpolated,  the  true  reading  being,  in  Him 
'Who  strengtheneth  me. 

There  is  in  Col.  i.  15-17  (comp.  2  Cor.  iv.  4)  "a  magnifi 
cent  dogmatic  passage,"  containing  "  perhaps  the  most  ex 
haustive  assertion  of  our  Lord's  Godhead  which  is  to  be 
found  in  the  writings  of  St.  Paul.  The  Colossian  Church 
was  exposed  to  the  intellectual  attacks  of  a  theosophic  doc 
trine,  which  degraded  Jesus  Christ  to  the  rank  of  one  of  a 
long  series  of  inferior  beings,  supposed  to  range  between 
mankind  and  the  Supreme  God.  Against  this  position  St. 
Paul  asserts  that  Christ  is  the  Image  of  the  Invisible  God, 


127 

The  expression,  Image  of  God,  supplements  the  title  of  'the 
Son.'  As  '  the  Son,'  Christ  is  derived  eternally  from  the 
Father,  and  He  is  of  One  Substance  with  the  Father.  As 
'the  Image,'  Christ  is,  in  that  One  Substance,  the  exact  like 
ness  of  the  Father,  in  all  things  except  being  the  Father. 
The  Son  is  the  Image  of  the  Father,  not  as  the  Father,  but 
as  God:  The  Son  is  'the  Image  of  God.'  The  Image  is  in 
deed  originally  God's  unbegun,  unending  reflection  of  Him 
self  in  Himself;  but  the  Image  is  also  the  Organ  Whereby 
God,  in  His  Essence,  invisible,  reveals  Himself  to  His  creat 
ures.  Thus  the  Image  is,  so  to  speak,  naturally  the  Creator, 
since  creation  is  the  first  revelation  which  God  has  made  of 
Himself.  Man  is  the  highest  point  in  the  visible  universe ; 
in  man,  God's  attributes  are  most  luminously  exhibited ;  man 
is  the  image  and  glory  of  God  (1  Cor.  xi.  7).  But  Christ  is 
the  Adequate  Image  of  God ;  God's  Self-reflection  in  His 
Own  thought,  eternally  present  with  Himself.  As  the  Image 
Christ  is  the  TtoaTOTOxoj  naar^  xriaewg ;  that  is  to  say,  not  the 
First  in  rank  among  created  beings,  but  begotten  before  any 
created  beings.  That  this  is  a  true  sense  of  the  expression 
is  etymologically  certain  "  (p.  817). 

We  are  here  carried  into  the  cloudy  region  of  theological 
metaphysics,  where  language  and  understanding  part  com 
pany.  To  all  appearance,  Mr.  Liddon  has  convinced  himself, 
and  would  fain  persuade  others,  St.  Paul  aimed  not  only  to 
exalt  Christ  above  angels,  and  to  point  out  His  priority  to 
every  other  creature,  but  also  to  assert  His  Godhead.  Yet 
very  little  examination  is  needed  to  ascertain  that  the  Apos 
tle's  language  can  by  no  reasonable  construction  be  made  to 
allege  or  imply  Christ's  Deity.  The  phrases  employed  are 
very  far  from  being  tantamount  to  delineations  of  the  Most 
High ;  they  clearly  bespeak  difference  and  inferiority.  The 
term  Image  denotes  resemblance,  without  marking  the  kind 
and  extent  of  that  resemblance.  In  its  most  extreme  sense 
it  does  not  signify  sameness,  and,  as  St.  Paul  uses  it,  the 
features  constituting  the  likeness  are  left  undefined.  Mr. 
Liddon  indulges  in  the  too  common  practice  of  interpreting 


128  THEOLOGICAL   METAPHYSICS. 

Scripture  by  inflating  indefinite  epithets.  According  to  his 
exposition,  the  title  Son  displays  an  identity  of  Substance 
with  the  Father,  and  the  title  Image  of  God  an  exact  like 
ness  to  God.  The  Son  has  the  Father's  Uncreated  Nature ; 
the  Image  is  after  the  closest  lines  of  complete  similitude. 
Now,  this  is  purely  arbitrary,  —  a  rash  and  presumptuous 
stretching  of  diction,  which  properly  describes  not  Divine, 
but  human  relations.  Son  of  God  is,  manifestly,  an  analogi 
cal. and  figurative  expression  ;  and  the  adjective  only -beg  otten, 
which  the  latest  of  the  Canonical  writers  joins  with  it,  enlarges 
the  figurativeness,  even  while  giving  a  degree  of  uniqueness 
and  intensity  to  the  relation  indicated.  What  is  begetting  on 
the  part  of  God,  if  being  alone  begotten  is  the  specific  diifer- 
ence  which  sunders  the  beloved  Son  from  the  many  sons, 
who,  in  the  realm  of  created  life,  are  begotten  and  born  of 
God  ?  It  is  not  from  Scripture,  rationally  interpreted,  men 
have  inferred  the  proposition  that  the  only -begotten  Son  is,  in 
virtue  of  His  Sonship,  a  Person  within  the  Incommunicable 
and  Imperishable  Essence.  They  have  brought  elaborated 
conceptions  to  Scripture,  and  have  grafted  them  on  to  a  few 
mystic  and  metaphorical  words.  The  very  phrases  by  which 
the  Sacred  writers  seem  to  shun  explicitness  and  precision 
become,  beneath  the  hands  of  interpreters,  most  explicit  and 
precise.  For  converting  Image  into  a  synonym  for  exact  and 
adequate  likeness,  there  is  really  no  reasonable  pretext.  No 
special  emphasis  is  given  to  the  noun,  as  in  Heb.  x.  1 ;  no 
defining  adjective  is  used;  and  St.  Paul  does  not  even  prefix 
the  Article,  and  call  Christ  the  Image  of  God,  but  an  Image, 
just  as  he  had,  in  1  Cor.  xi.  7,  called  man  (comp.  James  iii.  9). 
The  addition  to  the  name  of  God  of  the  epithet  invisible 
does  not  strengthen  the  expression,  or  render  it  more  expres 
sive  than  that  which  is,  in  the  first  Corinthian  Epistle,  applied 
to  man.  Since  the  Essence  of  God  is  invisible,  the  visible 
image  of  God  cannot  be  identical  with  His  Essence.  I  can 
not  even  imagine  what  sort  of  distinct,  objective  personality 
is  to  be  understood  by  "  God's  unbegun,  unending  reflection 
of  Himself  in  Himself;  His  Self-reflection  in  His  Own 


"  FIUST-BORN,"    "  ONLY-BEGOTTEN,"    ETC.  129 

thought,  eternally  present  with  Himself."  The  fault  may  be 
in  my  own  powers  of  comprehension,  but  I  strongly  suspect 
Mr.  Liddon  mistook  phrases  for  ideas. 

The  point  is  not  one  of  much  moment ;  but  Mr.  Liddon  is 
somewhat  too  confident  in  his  affirmation  that  the  original 
of  the  Authorized  Version,  first-born  of  every  creature,  means 
begotten  before  any  created  beings.  To  be  first-born  among 
is,  doubtless,  to  be  born  before  ;  but  we  depart  from  what  is 
"  etymologically  certain  "  when  we  substitute  begotten  for  born. 
Begetting  and  bringing  forth  by  birth  are,  in  their  human 
significance,  diverse.  Neither  can  be  in  strictness  attributed 
to  the  Almighty,  but  the  attribution  of  the  former  is  less 
conspicuously  figurative  than  the  attribution  of  the  latter. 
Unconsciously,  if  not  consciously,  the  Protestant  theological 
dogmatist  desires  to  reduce,  as  much  as  may  be,  the  meta 
phorical  aspect  of  the  expressions  into  which  the  language 
of  Scripture  compels  him  to  thrust  his  traditional  theories 
concerning  Christ's  nature,  and  so  he  prefers  first-begotten  to< 
first-bom.  There  can  be  no  dispute,  however,  that  the  more1 
literal  and  customary  meaning  of  the  term  employed  by  St. 
Paul  is  first  born.  New  Testament  usage  sanctions  no  other 
meaning.  Our  Lord  is  announced  to  have  been  originated 
or  produced  before  all  creation.  But  this  is  all  that  is  an 
nounced  respecting  His  origin.  The  text  does  not  say  the 
birth  of  the  Son,  who  is  Image  of  the  Invisible  God,  was  not 
some  creative  process,  though  that  process  preceded,  and 
may  in  unexplained  ways  have  differed  from  what  is  com 
monly  called  creation  :  it  does  not  say  the  Son  was  an  inher 
ent  Form  or  Person  in  the  Divine  Substance,  eternally 
present  Avith  the  Father.  Rather,  it  implies  by  the  words 
/Son,  First-born,  Image,  the  prior  and  distinct  existence  of 
an  originating  God  and  Antitype,  who,  by  an  act  of  His 
own  Will  and  Power,  became  in  some  way  a  Father,  and 
produced  a  Representative  of  Himself.  Expositors  who  can 
discern  in  the  words  Son,  first-born,  only-begotten,  a  disclosure 
of  identity  of  nature  between  God  and  Christ,  are  curiously 
unable  to  discern  the  vastly  more  obvious  disclosure,  that 

9 


130  CREATION   OF   ALL   THINGS. 

God  is  in  some  very  real  sense  the  originator  of  Christ,  the 
Cause  of  Christ's  existence.  If  the  Son  is  verily  a  neces 
sary  and  everlasting  Personal  Being,  comprised  in  the  Divine 
Essence,  equal  to,  land  of  One  Substance  with,  the  Father, 
then  first  -  born  and  only  -  begotten  are  thoroughly  empty 
phrases,  about  the  most  senseless  and  unmeaning  which  could 
have  been  devised  to  express  the  relations  of  eternally  co 
existing  and  Substantially  identical  Persons  in  the  Godhead. 
The  loose  figurativeness  of  the  language  is  transparently 
manifest  in  every  thing  except  in  indicating  that  God  was 
prior,  and  God  the  Producer;  but  Mr.  Liddon  draws  his 
theology  from  the  metaphor,  and  excludes  from  consideration 
the  one  simple,  intelligible  fact,  on  which  the  metaphor  is 
based. 

To  avoid  superfluous  discussion,  I  do  not  mention  some 
fairly  probable  explanations  of  the  passage ;  but  certainly 
the  expression  first-born  of,  all  creation  most  naturally  de 
notes  the  position  and  pre-eminence  of  primogeniture  among 
created  beings  and  things,  and  cannot  be  understood  as  a 
denial  that  the  Son  was  created  by  God.  To  suppose  the 
Apostle  intended  to  set  forth  Christ's  Deity  by  calling  Him 
born  before,  or  first-born  of,  the  whole  creation,  is  to  invite 
contempt  for  the  Apostle  and  his  language.  It  is  not  thus 
the  Church  has  proclaimed  her  dogma,  and  no  man  in  his 
senses  would  dream  of  teaching  Christ's  Godhead  in  such  a 
fashion.  The  use  of  TtQazoroxog  is  illustrated  by  Exod.  iv. 
22;  Jer.  xxxi.  9;  Rom.  viii.  29;  Col.  i.  18;  Heb.  xii.  23; 
Rev.  i.  5. 

A  man  committed  to  the  task  of  extracting  a  revelation  of 
our  Lord's  Deity  from  the  pages  of  the  New  Testament  is 
naturally  tempted  to  invest  with  peculiar  and  augmented 
significance  the  statement  (Col.  i.  16)  that  all  things  have 
been  created  in  Christ,  by  Christ,  and  for  Christ.  If,  with 
Mr.  Liddon,  we  translate  tv  in,  we  give  to  the  first  of  these 
expressions  a  metaphysical  and  mystic  import ;  but,  whatever 
creating  in  Christ  may  signify,  the  act  of  creating  must  be 
referred  to  the  Father,  Who,  in  emitting,  originating,  or 


IN,   BY,    AND     FOR   CHRIST  —  COL.    I.    16.  181 

producing  His  Son,  contemplated  and  prepared  for  the  pro 
duction  of  the  Universe.  The  most  accomplished  of  syste 
matic  theologians  would  probably  shrink  from  the  proposition 
that  Christ  himself  created  all  things  in  Himself.  If  we 
translate  tv  by,  it  will  then  undoubtedly  point  to  secondary, 
instrumental  agency. 

With  regard  to  the  next  expression,  by,  or  through  Christ, 
the  preposition  therein  employed  (dm,  with  the  Genitive 
case)  may  indeed  be  used  of  the  principal  cause  (Rom.  xi. 
36 ;  Heb.  ii.  10 ;  1  Cor.  i.  9 ;  and  perhaps  Gal.  iv.  7),  but  is 
much  more  frequently  and  regularly  used  of  the  subordinate 
cause,  when  it  corresponds  to  our  by  means  of,  through. 
Nothing  can  be  plainer  in  St.  Paul's  writings,  and  throughout 
the  New  Testament,  than  the  ascription  of  creation  to  God 
as  the  Primary,  Principal,  ultimately  Efficient  Cause  (Acts 
xiv.  15,  xvii.  24,  28 ;  Rom.  xi.  86;  1  Cor.  viii.  6;  Eph.  iii.  9). 
The  two  or  three  passages  (John  i.  3 ;  Col.  i.  16,  17  ;  Heb.  i. 
2),  which  attribute  creation  to  Christ,  attribute  it  in  an  infe 
rior,  secondary  sense.  The  statement,  "  Christ  is  the  One 
Producer  and  Sustainer  of  all  created  existence,"  is  a  very 
hyperbolical  mode  of  saying,  He  is  the  agent  through  whom, 
in  some  manner  not  explicable  by  us,  God  produced  and  sus 
tains  all  things.  Taking  the  statement  rigorously  and  liter 
ally,  it  is  palpably  false,  and  also  unscriptural.  Mr.  Lid  don 
himself  admits  :  "  The  Eternal  Father  is  the  ultimate  Source 
of  all  life." 

The  third  of  the  expressions,  for  Christ  (^),  betokens 
created  things  to  have  a  reference  to  Christ,  he  being,  under 
God,  and  by  God's  gift  and  appointment,  their  Lord  and 
Head.  In  Rom.  xi.  36,  after  the  statement,  all  things  are 
from  God,  all  things  are  said  to  be  for  Him,  but  it  is  puerile 
to  contend  that  the  general  indication  of  aim  and  reference 
contained  in  the  preposition  must  have  strictly  the  same 
force  in  the  two  instances.  The  different  Persons,  God  and 
Christ,  suggest  the  different  ranges  of  meaning  to  be 
assigned.  A  dogma  must  be  in  extremities  when  its  defend 
ers  cling  to  a  possible  sense  of  a  single  preposition,  in  a 


132  INDEFINITENESS   AND    VAGUENESS. 

single  text.  The  whole  tenor  of  Scripture  proves  created 
Intelligences  to  be  for  God,  and  on  account  of  God  (Heb.  ii. 
10),  in  an  acceptation  in  which  they  are  not  for  Christ. 
Glory,  thanks,  spiritual  sacrifices,  fruits  of  righteousness,  are 
"  to  God  and  His  honor,  through  (dia)  Jesus  Christ "  (Rom. 
xvi.  27 ;  1  Cor.  xv.  57 ;  Col.  iii.  17 ;  1  Peter  ii.  5 ;  Phil.  i.  11). 
We  are  taught,  "  The  Lord  God  Almighty  is  worthy  to 
receive  glory,  and  honor,  and  power,  because  He  has  created 
all  things,  and  on  account  of  His  Will  they  were  and  were 
created  "  (Rev.  iv.  11).  The  guiding  purpose  of  the  Christian's 
life  is  "  that  in  all  things  God  may  be  glorified,  through  Jesus 
Christ"  (1  Peter  iv.  11).  Other  texts  of  the  same  or  similar 
purport  might  be  cited,  but  these  are  sufficient,  and  by  their 
light  Mr.  Liddon's  adventurous  exposition  of  the  words  for 
him  may  be  read :  "  Christ  is  not,  as  Arianism  afterwards 
pretended,  merely  an  inferior  workman,  creating  for  the  glory 
of  a  higher  Master,  for  a  God  superior  to  Himself.  He  creates 
for  Himself;  He  is  the  End  of  created  things,  as  well  as 
their  immediate  Source ;  and,  in  living  for  Him,  every  creature 
finds  at  once  the  explanation  and  the  law  of  its  being.  For 
'  He  is  before  all  things,  and  by  Him  all  things  consist ' ' 
(p.  319). 

The  words  adduced  in  the  final  sentence  are  no  extenua 
tion  of  what  precedes.  The  Apostle  does  not  introduce 
them  as  a  reason  or  an  explanation :  And  he  is  before,  &c. 
They  affirm  priority  of  existence,  and  imply  pre-eminence 
in  relation  to  created  things.;  and,  by  stating  that  all  things 
stand  together  or  consist  (tv)  in  Christ,  they  to  some  extent 
expand,  without  illuminating,  what  had  before  been  said ; 
namely,  that  all  things  were  created  in  Christ.  It  is  impos 
sible  to  determine  conclusively  the  particular  shade  of  signifi 
cance  which  the  writer  intended  to  attach  to  the  verb  consist. 
The  subject  transcends  the  domain  of  definite  conceptions, 
and  the  language  is  vague.  But  Mr.  Liddon  has  no  right  to 
depart  from  the  meaning  which  he  had  just  previously  given 
to  the  preposition  w.  In  verses  16  and  17,  one  of  the  two 
translations,  by  him,  and  in  him,  should  be  kept  to.  The 


OF   THE   APOSTOLIC   LANGUAGE.  133 

former  will  denote  instrumental  agency ;  the  latter  will  lift 
our  thoughts  into  a  dim  ideal  region,  but  will  point  back  to 
the  One  Infinite  Mind  Whose  wisdom  and  power  created  all 
things  in  Christ,  and  caused  all  things  to  stand  together  in 
him. 

The  18th  and  following  verses  of  the  first  chapter  to  the 
Colossians,  Mr.  Liddon  passes  with  scantiest  comment.  He 
is,  no  doubt,  able  to  reconcile  them  with  his  dogma  in  a  man 
ner  quite  satisfactory  to  himself,  but  they  have,  to  say  the 
least,  an  appearance  of  incongruity  with  the  position,  that 
the  greatness  ascribed  to  Christ  is  due  to  his  being  Very  and 
Eternal  God.  When  He  is  magnified  by  the  title  First-born 
from  the  dead,  His  Divine  Person  is  not  the  Object  in  view ; 
and  yet,  since  there  is  no  other  person  than  the  Divine,  the 
first-born  of  all  creation,  and  the  first-born  from  the  dead,  must 
be  personally  one  and  the  same.  In  verse  19,  the  nomina 
tive  to  the  verb  was  well  pleased  is  not  expressed ;  but  our 
Translators  rightly  supplied  the  ellipsis  from  the  remoter 
antecedent  (ver.  12),  and  the  import  of  the  language  ill 
accords  with  the  doctrine  of  our  Lord's  Con- substantial,  Co- 
eternal,  Co-equal  Deity. 

The  word  (nli^^a)  fulness,  which  is  used  in  Col.  i.  19,  is 
used  again  ii.  9,  where  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  is  said  to 
dwell  in  Christ  bodily.  Mr.  Liddon  expounds  the  latter  text 
thus : — 

"  The  entire  cycle  of  the  Divine  attributes,  considered  as  a 
series  of  powers  or  forces,  dwells  in  Jesus  Christ ;  and  this 
not  in  any  merely  ideal  or  transcendental  manner,  but  with 
that  actual  reality  which  men  attach  to  the  presence  of  ma 
terial  bodies  which  they  can  feel  and  measure  through  the 
organs  of  sense ;  "  and  in  a  note  he  adds :  "  In  this  passage 
the  pleroma  must  be  understood  in  the  metaphysical  sense 
of  the  Divine  Essence,  even  if  in  Col.  i.  19  it  is  referred  to 
'the  fulness  of  Divine  grace.  Contrast,  too,  the  permanent 
fact  involved  in  the  present  dwells  of  the  one  passage,  with 
the  historical  aorist,  was  well  pleased  of  the  other."  The 
adverb  bodily  has  its  best  explanation  in  our  Lord's  Human- 


134  THE 

ity,  and  signifies  in  bodily  form.  The  meaning  really,  sub 
stantially,  is  not  inadmissible,  but  finds  stronger  support  in 
the  authority  of  orthodox  interpreters  than  in  reason  and 
philology.  The  expression  fulness  of  the  Godhead  is  not 
distinguishable  from  fulness  of  God.  The  word  translated 
Godhead  is  not  that  which  in  Rom.  i.  20  stands  for  the 
Divine  Nature,  but  a  term  to  which  Godship  would  perhaps 
be  the  more  exact  English  equivalent.  It  is,  however,  idle 
to  imagine  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  have  had  a  distinction 
of  this  sort  in  view.  If  we  bring  in  the  nice  discriminations 
and  verbal  minutiae  of  scholastic  theology,  it  is  erroneous  to 
affirm  that  the  Divine  Essence  abides  in  Christ.  He  is  inte 
rior  to  the  Divine  Essence,  and  the  precise  statement  of  His 
Deity  demands  the  announcement :  He  is  the  fulness  of  the 
Godhead,  in  a  bodily  form.  Apart  from  the  Divine  Essence, 
there  is,  according  to  the  theory  Mr.  Liddon  maintains,  no 
personal  Christ  in  whom  the  Divine  Essence  can  dwell.  But 
the  attempt  to  wring  a  dogma  out  of  a  trivial  difference  in 
phraseology  is  manifestly  foolish.  The  fulness  said  to  dwell 
in  Christ,  reasonably  viewed  by  the  light  of  Scripture,  con 
sists  in  the  plenitude  of  exalted  endowments  of  power  and 
dominion,  grace  and  sanctity,  communicated  from  the  Divine 
Nature  of  God  to  the  human  nature  of  Christ.  Whether 
they  were  bestowed  through  the  channel  of  a  pre-existent 
spiritual  Being  or  imparted  to  the  human  nature  directly  by 
the  Spirit  of  God  as  the  title,  the  Christ  (or  Anointed),  and 
some  texts  of  Scripture  already  appealed  to  (Matt.  xii.  18; 
Luke  iv.  18 ;  John  iii.  34;  Acts  x.  38),  would  lead  us  to  con- 
dude  is  not  here  of  practical  moment ;  in  either  case  God 
vas  their  Source  and  Giver.  There  is  nothing  to  sustain  the 
assertion  that  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  was  incommu 
nicable  to  any  creature,  and  specifically  different  in  kind  from 
all  the  fulness  which  the  Father  was  well  pleased  should 
dwell  in  Christ  (i.  19),  or  from  all  the  fulness  of  God  unto  ' 
(f/s')  which  the  Apostle  prayed  Christians  might  be  filled 
(Eph.  iii.  19).  By  phrases  so  nearly  identical  the  same  writer 
cannot,  without  extra  Scriptural  light,  be  seen  to  convey  con- 


IN   COL.    I.    19  ;   II.  9.  185 

ceptions  so  totally  dissimilar  as  are  the  influential  presence  of 
God  in  created  persons,  and  the  Incarnation  of  entire  Per 
sonal  Deity  within  the  elements  of  an  impersonal  Humanity. 
In  John  i.  16,  we  are  said  to  have  received  of  Chrises  ful 
ness,  and  the  contemplated  end  of  Christian  progress  is  the 
"  coining  unto  a  perfect  man,  unto  the  measure  of  the  stature 
of  the  fulness  of  Christ"  (Eph.  iv.  13).  In  neither  of  these 
passages  can  the  fulness  of  Christ  mean  "  the  Divine  Essence," 
or  "  the  Divine  Attributes,  considered  as  a  series  of  powers 
or  forces."  And  the  immediately  subjoined  context  (Col.  ii. 
10),  "And  ye  are  filled  full  (or  have  your  fulness)  in  Him," 
does  not  strengthen  the  opinion  that  fulness  of  the  Godhead 
denotes  essential,  inherent  qualities  of  the  Divine  Nature. 
The  very  close  connection  of  the  noun  and  verb  is  concealed 
from  the  English  reader,  owing  to  our  Translators  having 
rendered  the  latter  are  complete  ;  but  in  the  Greek  the  noun 
is  a  derivative  from  the  verb,  and  the  two  are  as  nearly  allied 
as  ^.YG  fulness  and  to  fill  in  our  own  language.  Christians 
are  made  full  from  the  fulness  that  is  in  Christ,  but  certainly 
do  not  share  the  absolute  perfections  of  the  Godhead.  The 
fulness  is  denominated  fulness  of  the  Godhead,  not  because 
it  is  the  cycle  of  the  Almighty's  Essential,  Incommunicable 
Properties,  but  because  it  flows  from  God,  and  is  God's  gift. 
Professor  Moses  Stuart,  the  great  American  champion  of 
Mr.  Liddon's  dogma,  freely  acknowledged  this  in  his  Fifth 
Letter  to  Channing.  "  In  Eph.  iii.  19,  the  Apostle  exhibits 
his  fervent  wishes  that  the  Christians  of  Ephesus  might  be 
'filled  witli  all  the  fulness  of  God.'  By  comparing  this  ex 
pression  as  applied  to  Christ  in  Col.  i.  19,  ii.  9,  with  John  i. 
14,  16,  and  Eph.  i.  23,  it  appears  evident  that  by  the  fulness 
of  God  is  meant  the  abundant  gifts  and  graces  which  were 
bestowed  on  Christ,  and  through  Him  upon  His  disciples." 
The  results  of  holiness  which  God  has  abidingly  and  com 
pletely  effected  in  Christ,  He  (according  to  the  theology  of  • 
the  Colossian  and  Ephesian  Epistles)  designs,  through  Christ, 
gradually  to  effect  in  His  other  spiritual,  rational  offspring. 
"  The  measure  of  the  stature  of  the  fulness  of  Christ,"  even 


136  EQUIVALENCE   OF   "  IMAGE  "    AND 

"  all  the  fulness  of  God,"  is  the  height  to  which  our  Heav 
enly  Father's  loving  wisdom  will  lift  His  obedient  children, 
by  the  stages  of  long-continued  progress. 

The  distinction  between  God  and  Christ,  though  not  pre 
sented  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  with  all  the  definite 
clearness  which  appears  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament,  is 
nevertheless  marked  in  a  fashion  not  easily  reconcilable  with 
the  assumption  that  the  writer,  in  exalting  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  intended  to  equalize  Him  with  God.  In  the  opening 
sentences,  the  Deity  is  designated  "  God  our  Father,"  and 
"  God  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ :  "  in  iii.  17,  the 
precept  is  given,  "  Do  all  things  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,  giving  thanks  to  God,  the  Father,  through  Him ; "  and 
in  iv.  3  there  is  an  exhortation  to  pray  that  God  would  open 
a  door  for  speaking  the  mystery  of  Christ;  the  mystery 
"  wherein  are  hid  all  the  treasures  of  wisdom  and  knowl 
edge  "  (ii.  3).  If  St.  Paul  was  inspired  to  believe,  with  an 
uniform  and  steady  faith,  that  Christ  is  a  Person  or  Form 
within  the  Essence  of  the  Divine  Nature,  this  language,  and 
the  general  style  of  his  references  to  God  and  Christ  through 
out  the  Epistle,  are  very  perplexing,  and  by  no  means  cal 
culated  to  exhibit  and  propagate  his  faith. 

By  what  rational  method  Mr.  Liddon  can  have  reached 
the  following  conclusion,  I  am  utterly  unablt)  to  conceive  :  — 
"  Although  throughout  this  Epistle  the  title  Logos  is  never 
introduced,  it  is  plain  that  the  Image  of  St.  Paul  is  equivalent 
in  His  rank  and  functions  to  the  Logos  of  St.  John.  Each 
exists  prior  to  creation  ;  each  is  the  One  Agent  in  creation ; 
each  is  a  Divine  Person  ;  each  is  equal  with  God,  and  shares 
His  essential  Life  ;  each  is  really  none  other  than  God."  The 
Logos  and  Image  may  approximate  nearly,  though  the 
former  is  a  step  in  advance,  and  to  each  an  existence  prior 
to  creation  generally  may  be  ascribed ;  the  rest  of  the  descrip 
tion  is  due  to  Mr.  Liddon's  traditional  faith  and  lively  imagi 
nation. 

The  Prologue  of  "  St.  John's  Gospel,"  and  the  opening 
chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  are,  in  Mr.  Liddon's 


CHRIST'S  DEITY  IN  HEBREWS  i.  5-14.  137 

opinion,  the  only  passages  in  the  entire  compass  of  the  New 
Testament  which  are  adequately  parallel  to  the  "  exhaustive 
and  magnificent  dogmatic  passage  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Col- 
ossians."  The  speculative  Christology  with  which  the  fourth 
Gospel  commences  has  been  already  alluded  to,  and  also  that 
application  of  words  from  the  45th  Psalm,  by  which  "  Christ 
is  expressly  addressed  as  God"  (Heb.  i.  8).  But  the  doctrine 
deduced  from  a  misapplied  and  perhaps  mistranslated  phrase  * 
is  set  aside  by  the  plain  sense  of  the  subsequent  context :  thy 
God  hath  anointed  thee,~&c. 

The  language  of  the  writer  to  the  Hebrews  dilates  remark 
ably  under  Mr.  Liddon's  manipulation.  "  Christ  in  His  cru 
cified,  but  now  enthroned,  Humanity,  is  seated  at  the  right  of 
the  Majesty  on  high  (i.  3)  ;  He  is  seated  there,  as  being  Heir 
of  all  things  (ver.  2) ;  the  angels  themselves  are  but  a  por 
tion  of  His  vast  inheritance.  The  dignity  of  His  titles  is  indic 
ative  of  His  essential  rank  (ver.  4)."  How  can  Christ's  being 
seated  at  the  right  hand  of  God  intimate  He  is  God  ?  Do 
not  the  very  terms  in  which  His  exalted  position  is  de 
scribed  show  Him  not  to  be  interior  to  the  Divine  Majesty, 
but  exalted  by  It  ?  How  does  Christ  become  Heir  of  all 
things  ?  —  in  virtue  of  inherent  Deity,  or  by  the  decree  of 
"  His  Father  and  our  Father,  His  God  and  our  God  "  ?  The 
author  of  the  Epistle  tells  us,  God  constituted  or  appointed 
Him  Heir  of  all  things.  How  can  the  supreme  rank  of 
Essential  Godhead  be  indicated  by  the  statement,  "He 
became  so  much  better  than  the  angels,  as  He  hath  inherited 
(or  obtained)  a  more  excellent  name  than  they"  ?  Mr.  Lid- 
don  himself  admits  the  reference  is  to  the  exaltation  of  our 
Lord's  Humanity.  The  superior  excellence  of  Christ's  Name 
is  enforced  and  illustrated  in  verse  5  by  an  application  of 
language  which  Christians,  possessing  the  knowledge  that 
Christ  is  Eternal  God,  cannot  readily  apply  to  His  Divine 

*  Dr.  Davidson  repeats  in  his  "  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament  " 
his  opinion  that  the  sense  of  the  Hebrew  is,  "Thy  God's  or  Divine  throne 
i*  for  ever  and  ever."  Isaac  Leeser  also  renders,  in  Psalm  xlv. :  "  Thy 
throne,  given  of  God." 


138  CHRISTOLOGY   OF   THE 

Essence :  Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee 
(see  also  v.  5).  And  again  I  will  be  to  him,  as,  or  for  (sig), 
a  Father,  and  he  shall  be  to  Me  as,  or  for  (sig),  a  Son  (comp. 
2  Cor.  ATi.  18).  If  it  is  said,  begetting  in  time  (this  day} 
refers  to  Christ's  assumption  of  human  nature,  or  to  His 
resurrection  in  that  nature,  then  the  Sonship  is  no  token  of 
Deity,  and  does  not  unveil  an  Uncreated  Entity.  The  present 
Bishop  of  Lincoln  (Dr.  Wordsworth),  in  his  Article,  "  Son  of 
God"  (Smith's  Bible  Dictionary),  expounds  the  passage  with 
his  accustomed  decision  and  lucidity :  "  But,  in  a  still  higher 
sense,  that  title  (Son)  is  applied  by  God  to  His  only  Son, 
begotten  by  eternal  generation  (see  Ps.  ii.  7,  as  interpreted 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  i.  5 ;  v.  5)  ;  the  word  to-day, 
in  that  passage,  being  expressive  of  the  act  of  God,  with 
Whom  is  no  yesterday  nor  to-morrow."  To-day,  therefore, 
in  Divine  phraseology  addressed  to  men,  excludes  any  definite 
particular  time.  The  wonder  is  that  a  word  so  superfluous 
and  misleading  should  have  been  introduced,  but  its  presence 
may  remind  us  of  the  difference  between  Divine  and  human 
diction. 

Verse  13  raises  the  question,  to  what  personal  Being  is 
the  language  addressed,  Sit  thou  on  my  Tight  hand,  till  I 
make  thine  enemies  thy  footstool  ?  Is  it  addressed  by  God 
to  Co-equal,  Consubstantial  God,  or  is  it  addressed  to  the 
impersonal  Humanity  in  which  one  of  the  Forms,  Dis 
tinctions,  or  Persons  of  the  Godhead  arrayed  Himself?  This 
is  a  point  which  must  be  settled  before  inferences  are  drawn. 
If  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  imagined  Deity  was  accosting 
Deity,  his  credit  for  spiritual  discernment  and  common  sense 
is  impaired;  if  he  believed  the  man  Christ  Jesus  was 
accosted,  his  inspiration  did  not  develop  orthodox  apprehen 
sions  of  Personality,  and  his  language  does  not  contribute  to 
establish  the  dogma  that  Christ  is,  in  the  most  absolute  sense, 
Divine. 

On  the  expression,  "  This  day  have  I  begotten  thee,"  Mr. 
Liddon  bestows  no  attention.  He  understands  the  term  the 
Son  of  God,  or  the  Son,  to  refer  to  our  Lord's  only  personal 


EPISTLE   TO   THE    HEBREWS.  139 

nature,  the  pre-incarnate,  and  seeks  the  full  sense  of  the  term 
in  the  imagery  of  the  third  verse.  "  That  the  Son  is  One 
with  God,  as  having  streamed  forth  eternally  from  the 
Father's  Essence,  like  a  ray  of  light  from  the  parent  fire  with 
which  it  is  unbrokenly  joined,  is  implied  in  the  expression, 
effulgence  of  His  glory.  That  He  is  both  personally  distinct 
from,  and  yet  literally  equal  to,  Him  of  Whose  Essence  He 
is  the  adequate  imprint,  is  taught  us  in  the  phrase,  imprinted 
image  of  His  Substance*  By  Him,  therefore,  the  universe 
was  made  (ver.  2)  ;  and  at  this  moment  all  things  are  pre 
served  and  upheld  in  being  by  the  fiat  of  His  almighty  word 
(ver.  3)  "  (p.  322). 

Now,  in  this  commentary,  ideas  are  interpolated,  and  facts 
are  misrepresented.  There  is  nothing  implied  or  taught 
about  eternal  streaming  forth,  and  unbroken  junction.  The 
figurative  delineation  might  have  been  invested  with  a  more 
definite,  special,  and  exclusive  character  by  the  use  of  the 
article ;  but  "  the  Son  in  or  by  (tv)  whom  God  has  spoken," 
is  called  only  an  emanation,  &c.,  an  impression,  &c.  The 
writer  of  the  Epistle  was  sufficiently  master  of  Greek  to 
know  how  to  express  in  that  language  clear  and  precise 
thoughts,  with  clearness  and  precision.  He  tried  to  set  forth 
what  in  his  conception  was  our  Lord's  most  intimate  relation 
to  God,  and  he  employed,  in  its  vaguest  form,  very  vague 
and  figurative  diction.  The  implication  and  the  teaching  of 
unity  and  equality,  as  well  as  personal  distinctness,  may  be 

*  Mr.  Liddon  quotes  the  Greek  of  the  expressions,  effulgence,  &c.,  im 
printed  image,  &c.,  without  translating.  Person  in  the  Authorized  Version 
is  certainly  incorrect ;  substance  is  a  better  translation,  but  the  word  em 
ployed  carries  no  assurance  that  the  writer  had  the  particular  conception 
Essential  Nature,  rather  than  the  more  general  conception  Being,  in  his 
thoughts.  The  same  word  occurs  (iii.  14)  in  the  phrase  "beginning  of 
our  confidence ; "  and  again  (xi.  1)  in  the  badly  rendered  phrase,  "faith  is 
the  substance,"  £c.  On  the  two  expressions  from  which  Mr.  Liddon 
argues,  Conybeare  and  Howson  give  the  following  notes  :  — 

(1.)  "Not  brightness  (A.V.),  but  emanation,  as  of  light  from  the  sun. 
The  word  and  idea  occur  in  Philo." 

(2.)  "  Literally  impression,  as  of  a  seal  on  wax.  The  expression'is  used 
by  Philo  concerning  the  Eternal  Word." 


140  CHRISTOLOGY   OF  THE 

quite  manifest  to  Mr.  Liddon,  but  from  ordinary  understand 
ings  they  are  impenetrably  hidden. 

In  the  statement,  "by  Him  (Christ),  therefore,  the  universe 
was  made,"  advantage  is  taken  of  verbal  ambiguity.  The 
literal  translation  of  the  text  is,  through  whom  also  He  (  God} 
made  the  ages,  where  it  is  not  at  all  probable  the  word  ages 
signifies  the  universe,  though  it  is  perhaps  possible,  but  still 
very  unlikely,  the  word  signifies  worlds  ;  that  is,  the  present 
and  future  abodes  of  mankind.  A  reference  to  Heb.  xi.  3  by 
no  means  settles  the  question,  the  sense  being  there  also 
undetermined.  The  more  radical  and  closely  connected 
senses  of  the  word,  period  of  duration,  age,  dispensation, 
appear  in  the  Epistle,  and  more  especially  in  vi.  5  and  ix.  26, 
in  the  latter  of  which  the  usual  and  proper  term  for  world 
occurs  in  the  expression  foundation  of  the  world.  Professor 
Stuart,  in  the  first  of  his  "  Essays  on  Words  relating  to  Fu 
ture  Punishment,"  writes  :  "  I  had  myself,  before  I  gave  the 
topic  an  extended  and  minute  investigation,  been  accustomed 
to  suppose  that  in  Heb.  i.  2,  xi.  3,  the  universe  must  be  meant, 
particularly  because  the  plural  number  is  there  employed; 
but  a  minute  inquiry  into  the  grounds  of  such  a  rendering 
has  convinced  me  of  my  mistake."  The  plural  number  is 
employed  in  ix.  26,  at  the  end  of  the  ages. 

Mr.  Liddon  again  avails  himself  of  verbal  ambiguity  when 
he  says :  "  All  things  are  preserved  and  upheld  in  being  by 
the  fiat  of  His  (Christ's)  almighty  word."  The  phrase  word 
of  His  power  may  possibly  refer  to  the  power  of  the  Son, 
but  more  naturally  and  probably  refers  to  the  power  of  the 
Infinite  Father.  The  dubious  construction  of  the  Greek  is 
exactly  represented  in  the  Anglican  Version. 

On  the  ground  of  a  misapplied  and  mistranslated  quotation 
from  Psalm  xcvii.  7,  Mr.  Liddon  speaks  of  "  the  honors  which 
the  heavenly  intelligences  themselves  may  not  refuse  to  pay 
Christ,  even  when  He  is  entering  upon  His  profound  Self- 
humiliation  (ver.  6)."  We  need  not  inquire  how  the  heav 
enly  intelligences  could  need  the  injunction,  let  all  the 
angels  of  God  worship  Him.  Whether  their  intelligence 


EPISTLE   TO   THE   HEBREWS.  141 

was,  or  was  not,  equal  to  the  task  of  discerning  the  Almighty 
and  Self-existent  Substance  through  the  veil  of  human  flesh, 
is  a  question  beyond  the  range  of  our  knowledge.  The  error 
in  the  application  of  the  Psalmist's  words,  "  worship  Him,  all 
ye  gods  (elokim)"  is  obvious  to  every  reader  of  the  97th 
Psalm.  Some  suppose  a  Septuagint  reading  of  Deuteronomy 
xxxii.  43,  preserved  in  the  Vatican  MS.,  but  probably  spu 
rious,  is  the  source  of  the  quotation ;  but  this  supposition  does 
not  help  the  matter,  since  in  Deuteronomy  xxxii.  the  Messiah 
is  not,  directly  or  indirectly,  alluded  to.  There  is  but  one 
conclusion  which  a  rational  judgment  can  sanction,  —  the 
Canonical  writer  applied  an  Old  Testament  passage  erro 
neously. 

A  similar  decision  must  be  given  respecting  the  citation 
in  verses  10-12,  which  Mr.  Liddon  uses  as  a  testimony  to 
"  Christ's  relationship  of  Creator  both  to  earth  and  heaven." 
Reference  to  the  24-27  verses  of  the  102d  Psalm  demonstrates 
that  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  mistaken. 
The  afflicted  Psalmist's  plaintive  entreaty  is  poured  forth  to 
God,  the  One  God  whom  the  Jews  worshipped,  and  not  to 
Messiah. 

But  it  may  be  urged,  these  citations  from  the  Jewish 
Scriptures  are  at  any  rate  evidence  of  what  the  writer  of 
the  Epistle  himself  thought  concerning  Christ's  nature  and 
dignity.  Opinions  enforced  by  palpably  bad  reasons  are  not 
generally  of  much  value,  but  the  citations,  when  compared  with 
the  language  which  pervades  the  Epistle,  are  rather  proofs 
the  writer  did  not  think  deeply,  and  knew  too  little  of  his 
theme  to  treat  it  consistently.  If  he  believed  that  Christ,  in 
His  pre-incarnate  and  alone  personal  Being,  was  addressed 
•in  the  language  he  had  just  quoted  from  the  102d  Psalm, 
how  could  he  with  consistency  immediately  add  (ver.  13), 
referring  to  the  beginning  of  the  110th  Psalm,  "  To  which  of 
the  angels  said  He  (God),  at  any  time,  Sit  thou  on  my  right 
hand,  until  I  make  thine  enemies  thy  footstool"?  How 
could  he,  conformably  with  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  Personal 
Co-equal  Godhead,  describe  Him  in  the  terms  made  use  of 


142  CHRISTOLOGY   OF   THE 

in  ii.  10-13  verses?  How  also,  if  he  had  grasped  the  con 
ception  that  Christ  is  Very  and  Eternal  God,  could  he  have 
written  (ii.  18;  iv.  15;  v.  7)  of  our  Lord's  having  suffered, 
being  tempted,  —  tempted  in  all  points  like  as  we  are ;  and 
having  offered  up  prayers  and  supplications,  &c.  ?  God  can 
not  be  tempted  by  evil  (James  i.  13),  and  the  elements  of  a 
created  Humanity,  which  Christ  drew  around  his  Divine 
Person,  could  not,  in  any  real  sense,  expose  the  Self-existent 
Infinite  Spirit  to  the  temptations  of  finite  creatures.  "  Temp 
tations  endured  by  Almighty  God "  is  language  akin  to 
blasphemy ;  but,  if  Christ's  temptations  were  not  endured  by 
Almighty  God,  by  what  person  were  they  endured?  If 
His  "  prayers  and  supplications,  with  strong  crying  and  tears," 
were  not  offered  up  by  Almighty  God,  by  what  person  were 
they  offered  up  ? 

In  Heb.  iii.  2,  "  Jesus,  the  Apostle  and  High  Priest  of 
our  profession,"  is  said  to  have  been  faithful  to  Him  who 
appointed  Him,  and  His  superiority  to  God's  servant  Moses 
is  illustrated  (ver.  6)  by  the  fact  that  He  is  over  God's  house 
as  a  son.  The  English  Version  misleads  by  translating  his 
own  house  /  the  original  is,  Sis  (God's)  house.  Whose  house 
Christians  are  (comp.  1  Cor.  iii.  16;  vi.  19;  2  Cor.  vi.  16). 

It  is  impossible  to  reconcile  the  language  respecting  our 
Lord's  priesthood  according  to  the  Order  of  Melchisedec,  in 
the  fifth  chapter,  and  five  chapters  next  ensuing,  with  any 
sort  of  clear,  intelligent  faith  in  His  Deity.  Mr.  Liddon  sees 
"  a  superhuman  Personality  more  than  hinted  at  in  the  terms 
of  the  comparison  which  is  instituted  between  Melchisedec 
and  his  Divine  Antitype.  History  records  nothing  of  the 
parents,  of  the  descent,  of  the  birth,  or  of  the  death  of 
Melchisedec ;  he  appears  in  the  sacred  narrative  as  if  he  had 
no  beginning  of  days  or  end  of  life.  In  this  he  is  'made  like 
unto  the  Son  of  God,'  with  His  Eternal  Pre-existence  and 
His  endless  days.  This  Eternal  Christ  can  save  to  the  utter 
most,  because  He  has  a  Priesthood  that  is  unchangeable,  since 
it  is  based  on  His  Own  Everlasting  Being"  (p.  338).  Argu 
ments  of  this  kind  only  provoke  a  smile.  The  description 


EPISTLE    TO    THE    HEBREWS.  143 

given  of  Melchisedec  (vii.  3)  is  singularly  fanciful  and  exag 
gerated.  He  is  said  explicitly  to  be  "  without  father,  without 
mother,"  to  have  "  neither  beginning  of  days  nor  end  of  life ; " 
and  then  the  perpetuity  of  His  priesthood  is  described  by 
exactly  the  same  phrase  by  which  (x.  12)  the  perpetuity  of 
Christ's  session  at  the  right  hand  of  God  is  described.  And 
why,  in  quoting  Heb.  vii.  24,  25,  are  the  important  words, 
"  Them  that  come  unto  God,  through  Him,"  omitted  ?  Is  it 
because  they  distinguish  between  Christ  and  God,  in  a  manner 
unsuited  to  Mr.  Liddon's  deductions  ? 

But  the  errors  into  which  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  has  fallen  do  not  call  for  the  supposition  that,  on 
the  subject  of  Christ's  pre-incarnate  rank,  his  thoughts  were 
so  utterly  ignorant  and  confused  as  to  render  the  general 
prevailing  tone  of  his  language  not  indicative  of  the  opin 
ions  to  which  his  mind  inclined.  A  few  perverted  and  incon 
sistent  interpretations  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures 
certainly  do  not  justify  us  in  pronouncing  him  altogether 
speculative,  visionary,  and  unreasonable.  In  addition  to  the 
evidence  already  adduced,  I  think  the  subjoined  passages 
sufficiently  reveal  that  their  author  did  not  hold,  or  intend  to 
impart,  the  theory,  —  Christ  is  Essential  and  Consubstantial 
God,  in  Xature  One  with,  and  Equal  to,  the  Father. 

"  How  much  more  shall  the  blood  of  Christ,  who  through 
the  Eternal  Spirit  (perhaps,  Holy  Spirit)  offered  Himself 
without  spot  to  God,  cleanse  your  conscience  from  dead 
works  to  the  service  of  the  living  God"  (ix.  14).  "Ye  are 
come  to  the  general  assembly  and  church  of  the  first-born 
(TTOCGTOTOXOCW,)  who  are  enrolled  in  heaven,  and  to  God  the 
Judge  of  all,  and  to  the  spirits  of  just  men  made  perfect,  and 
to  Jesus,  mediator  of  a  new  covenant"  (xii.  23,  24). 

"  May  the  God  of  peace,  Who  brought  again  from  the 
dead  our  Lord  Jesus,  the  great  Shepherd  of  the  sheep  by 
the  blood  of  an  everlasting  covenant,  make  you  perfect  in 
every  good  work,  to  do  His  will ;  wrorking  in  you  that  which 
is  well  pleasing  in  His  sight,  through  Jesus  Christ "  (xiii.  20, 
21).  The  Greek  admits  the  rendering,  "  The  Shepherd  of 


144  FAILURE   OF   MR.    LIDDON's   APPEAL 

the  sheep,  great  by  the  blood,"  &c.,  but  the  other  rendering 
is,  I  think,  to  be  preferred. 

Mr.  Liddon  conceives  that,  in  the  statements  of  the  first 
chapter  of  this  Epistle,  "  We  recognize  a  Being,  for  Whose 
Person,  although  It  be  clothed  in  a  finite  Human  Nature 
(iii.  2),  there  is  no  real  place  between  humanity  and  God " 
(p.  323).  Assertions  of  this  kind  prompt  the  inquiry,  What 
do  we  know  of  the  intermediate  terms  of  the  series  interven 
ing  between  earthly  humanity  and  God?  But  experience 
shows  that  ignorance  of  the  grounds  on  which  his  proposition 
ought  to  rest  need  never  hinder  a  man  from  affirming  an 
orthodox  conclusion  to  be  contained  in  Scripture.  If,  having 
first  derived  our  dogma  from  other  sources,  we  come  to  the 
reading  of  the  Epistle  fully  convinced  such  a  Being  "as  Mr. 
Liddon  discovers  is,  and  must  be,  depicted,  then,  doubtless, 
we  shall  recognize  him ;  but  unbiassed,  reasonable  investiga 
tion  will  not  lead  to  the  recognition.  The  general  tone  and 
scope  of  the  sacred  writer  are,  according  to  all  ordinary  rules 
of  apprehension,  plainly  at  variance  with  the  assumption  of 
his  belief  in  the  proper  Deity  of  Jesus  Christ.  Mr.  Liddon 
is  thoroughly  persuaded  that  in  various  portions  of  the  New 
Testament  the  Divine  prerogatives  (that  is,  true  Deity)  of 
Christ  are  explicitly  asserted,  and  therefore  does  not  speak 
ironically  when  he  says,  "  While  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
lays  even  a  stronger  emphasis  than  any  other  book  of  the 
New  Testament  upon  Christ's  true  Humanity,  it  is  neverthe 
less  certain  that  no  other  book  more  explicitly  asserts  the 
reality  of  His  Divine  prerogatives." 

Now,  a  careful  examination  of  the  passages  in  the  Epistles 
to  the  Philippians,  Colossians,  and  Hebrews,  to  which  Mr. 
Liddon  appeals,  does  something  more  than  show  the  failure 
of  his  appeal  to  evoke  the  response  he  seeks.  It  throws  sus 
picions  of  the  gravest  kind  upon  his  doctrine,  and  raises  dif 
ficulties  which  admit  of  no  solution,  short  of  denial  that  the 
Scriptures,  rationally  understood,  are  a  true  and  sufficing 
Rule  of  Orthodox  Faith.  A  really  candid,  logically  minded 
investigator  feels  himself  driven,  however  reluctantly,  to  one 


TO    THE   EPISTLES    QUOTED.  145 

of  two  conclusions:  either  Orthodoxy  has  taught  for  doc 
trines  unwarranted  and  extra-Scriptural  speculations,  or  the 
Canonical  writers  were  directed  by  a  controlling  inspiration 
of  concealment,  preparative  to  the  Church's  mission  as  the 
living  and  authoritative  Revealer  and  Teacher,  through 
Which,  to  the  end  of  time,  the  light  of  dogma  was  to  be 
dispensed.  According  to  one  of  these  conclusions,  Mr.  Lid- 
don's  doctrine  may  be  true  and  tenable,  and  on  the  ground 
on  which  it  is  tenable  I  leave  it  quite  unchallenged.  I  only 
contend  that  in  Scripture  alone  it  has  no  adequate  logical 
basis,  and  cannot  possibly  be  deduced  by  methods  of  rational 
interpretation.  Assume  there  is  in  the  Church  an  authority 
co-ordinate  with,  and  in  some  respects  superior  to,  Scripture, 
and,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  the  controversy  is  at  an  end. 
I  do  not  wish  to  enter  upon  the  question  whether  the  claims 
of  Church  authority  can  be  satisfactorily  vindicated.  Mr. 
Liddon  exposes  himself  to  criticism  by  not  avowing  that  he 
interprets  from  the  ground  of  ecclesiastical  light  and  preroga 
tive,  not  from  the  ground  of  reason.  He  Avants  to  be  thought 
rational  when  he  is  ecclesiastical,  but  the  two  conditions  are 
different ;  the  latter  is  held  by  many  to  be  the  nobler  and 
more  enlightened  condition,  but  it  is  specifically  distinct  from 
the  former. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  the  writers  of  the  Epistles  named 
above  designed  to  exalt  Christ,  and  to  avouch  His  superiority 
to  angels,  and  to  all  the  productions  of  any  creative  or  ad 
ministrative  energy  which  they  supposed  the  Father  to  have 
exercised  through  Him.  If  they  had  dared  to  proclaim,  and 
had  desired  to  proclaim,  His  Godhead,  surely  (looking  at  the 
subject  from  the  reasonable,  and  not  the  ecclesiastical  point  of 
view)  they  would  have  done  so.  They  would  not,  when  the 
topic  was  specially  before  their  minds,  have  wrapt  their  faith 
in  figurative  phrases,  and  have  shunned  giving  simple  and  dis 
tinct  utterance  to  the  thought  which  lay  nearest  their  hearts. 
Men  who  are  convinced  Christ  is  God  are  not  apt  to  be  reticent 
or  ambiguous  when  discoursing  of  His  dignity.  Approxima 
tions  on  this  subject  may  be  fairly  construed  as  evidences  the 

10 


146  CHRISTOLOGY   OF   THE    APOCALYPSE. 

writers  could  not  do  more  than  approximate.  They  might  be 
moving  in  the  direction  of  the  doctrine  ultimately  laid  down 
by  the  Church,  but  their  thoughts  were  still  in  the  nature  of 
guesses  and  speculations;  and  conscious  lack  of  knowledge 
restrained  them  from  definite  allegations.  If  the  New  Testa 
ment  contains  no  statements  which,  in  their  rational  meaning, 
amount  to  negation  of  Christ's  Deity  (a  point  to  be  hereafter 
examined),  microscopic  germs  of  the  doctrine  of  His  Deity 
may  perhaps  be  discernible  in  the  vague,  obscure,  metaphorical 
expressions  which  Mr.  Liddon  seizes  upon,  and  expands  ;  but, 
on  the  most  favorable  supposition,  the  doctrine  itself,  in  a 
developed,  intelligible,  precise  shape,  is  absent.  We  must 
seek  for  it  as  a  revelation,  beyond  the  limits  of  Scripture,  and 
then  bring  it  to  Scripture,  as  a  key  of  knowledge,  and  a  clew 
to  meanings  which  unaided  reason  oould  never  detect. 

The  Christology  of  the  Apocalypse  is  treated  with  Mr. 
Liddon's  accustomed  heedless  rhetoric,  and  readiness  of 
assumption.  "  The  representation  of  the  Person  of  our 
Saviour  in  the  Apocalypse  is  independent  of  any  indistinct 
ness  that  may  attach  to  the  interpretation  of  the  historical 
imagery  of  that  wonderful  book.  In  the  Apocalypse,  Christ 
is  the  First  and  the  Last ;  He  is  the  Alpha  and  the  Omega  ; 
He  is  the  Beginning  and  the  End  of  all  existence  (Rev.  i.  8 ; 
ii.  8;  xxi.  6;  xxii.  13).  He  possesses  the  seven  spirits  or 
perfections  of  God  (iii.  1).  He  has  a  mysterious  Name  which 
no  man  knows  save  He  himself  (xix.  12).  His  name  is  writ 
ten  on  the  foreheads  of  the  faithful  (iii.  12 ;  comp.  ii.  17)  ; 
His  grace  is  the  blessing  of  Christians  (xxii.  21)  "  (p.  243). 

Out  -of  the  four  texts  included  in  the  first  of  the  above 
references,  there  is  only  one  (ii.  8)  in  which  it  is  certain 
Christ  is  the  speaker.  Hengstenberg,  who  fancies  the  diction 
of  the  Apocalypse  to  have  been  framed  with  the  intention 
of  exhibiting  Christ's  "  equality  to  God  in  power  and  glory" 
( Commentary  on  Apocalypse,  Eng.  Trans,  vol.  i.  p.  107)  is 
of  opinion  that,  in  i.  8,  xxi.  6,  xxii.  13,  Christ  in  His  personal 
distinctness  is  not  the  speaker,  but  "  God  in  the  undivided 
Unity  of  His  Being,  without  respect  to  the  difference  of 


CHRISTOLOGY    OF   THE    APOCALYPSE.  147 

Persons ; "  an  opinion  which  the  contexts  in  the  two  former 
instances  sustain,  though  in  the  latter  the  speaker  is  doubtful. 
There  is,  therefore,  only  inadequate  warrant  for  the  announce 
ment  "  Christ  is  the  Alpha  and  Omega ;  He  is  the  Beginning 
and  End  of  all  existence."  In  i.  8,  the  speaker  is  shown  by 
the  true  reading  to1  be  the  Lord  God  the  Almighty,  and  the 
words  beginning  and  end  are  very  doubtful ;  the  descriptive 
clauses  with  which  verse  11  commences  must  also  be  omitted. 
Christ  is  called  the  first  and  the  last,  and  to  these  epithets  in 
i.  17,  and  ii.  8,  is  appended  the  statement,  He  was  dead  and 
is  alive,  a  statement  which  could  not  rationally  be  made  of 
a  Person  Who  is  the  Almighty's  Equal  in  nature,  power, 
and  glory.  And  the  titles  the  first  and  the  last  are  not, 
even  if  synonymous  with  the  Alpha  and  the  Omega,  the 
beginning  and  the  end,  necessarily  predications  of  Supreme 
Deity.  Jesus  Christ  is  "the  First  and  the  Last,  the  Begin 
ning  and  the  End,"  in  relation  to  the  Church,  in  which  He 
is  the  Foundation  and  the  Head  (1  Cor.  iii.  11 ;  Eph.  i.  22, 
ii.  20,  iv.  15)  ;  and  the  Faith,  of  which  He  is  Author  and 
Finisher  (Heb.  xii.  2).  The  titles  may  be  suitably  applied 
both  to  the  Lord  God,  and  to  Christ,  but  the  significance  in 
each  application  will  be  determined  by  the  nature,  attributes, 
and  offices  of  the  Being  described.  That  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  is,  under  His  Father,  and  by  His  Father's  ordination, 
the  commencement  and  consummation  of  the  Church,  is  un 
questionably  the  teaching  of  the  New  Testament.  When 
Scripture  proof  shall  have  been  presented  that  Christ  is  not 
the  highest  originated  spirit,  the  noblest  and  most  lavishly 
enriched  production  of  His  Father's  Wisdom,  Will,  and 
Might,  it  will  be  time  enough  to  argue  that  comprehensive 
designations  assigned  to  Him  have  the  same  exclusive  and 
singular  force  which  they  have  when  assigned  to  the  Al 
mighty. 

Christ  is  called  (iii.  14)  the  beginning  of  the  creation  of 
God,  a  most  inexcusable  and  dangerous  appellation,  if  St. 
John  knew  Him  to  be  severed  by  the  immeasurable  chasm 
of  Self-existence  from  all  the  creatures  of  God  \  for  the 


148  CHRISTOLOGY   OF   THE    APOCALYPSE. 

phrase  cannot  fairly  be  denuded  of  its  simple,  prima  facie 
sense,  the  first  created  Being. 

Where  is  the  warrant  for  transforming  the  seven  S2)irits 
into  the  seven  perfections  of  God?  The  writer  of  the  Apoc 
alypse  begins  his  address  to  the  seven  Churches  (i.  4)  with 
the  pious  aspiration  —  "  Grace  and  peace  be  unto  you  from 
the  Almighty,  and  from  the  seven  spirits  which  are  before 
His  throne,  and  from  Jesus  Christ,  the  faithful  witness,  the 
first-born  of  the  dead."  In  iii.  1,  the  possession  of  the  seven 
spirits  of  God,  and  of  the  seven  stars  or  angels  of  the  seven 
Churches  (i.  20),  is  ascribed  to  Christ.  The  5th  verse  of 
chap.  iv.  symbolizes  the  seven  spirits  by  seven  lamps  of  fire 
burning  before  the  throne ;  and  the  6th  verse  of  chap.  v.  says 
the  seven  horns  and  seven  eyes  of  the  Lamb  (the  Lord 
Jesus)  are  the  seven  spirits  of  God  sent  forth  into  all  the 
earth.  There  is  here  no  justification  for  surmising  the  spirits 
to  be  attributes  or  perfections  of  the  Almighty.  The  only 
motive  for  such  a  surmise  is  the  desire  to  transfer  to  Christ 
essential  properties  of  the  Divine  Nature.  If  the  writer  did 
not  mean  to  indicate  seven  separate,  created  ministering 
spirits,  he  meant  to  typify  the  varied  operations  of  the  One 
Holy  Spirit.  The  latter  was  more  probably  his  purpose.  Dr. 
Davidson  remarks :  "  Seven  spirits  are  said  to  be  before  the 
throne  of  the  Almighty,  meaning  the  seven  highest  spirits  ; 
an  idea  taken  from  the  Zoroastrian  religion  into  the  Jewish, 
as  we  see  from  Zechariah  (iv.  2-10),  but  modified  in  the 
Hebrew  conception,  so  that  in  the  Apocalypse  the  seven 
spirits  represent  the  One  Spirit  of  God"  (Introduction  to 
N~eio  Testament,  vol.  i.  p.  337).  The  prerogative  of  Christ 
in  the  distribution  of  the  Holy  Spirit's  gifts  is  indisputable, 
but  such  prerogative  is  assuredly  no  proof  of  His  Deity.  It 
appertains  to  the  regency  and  delegated  control  which  the 
One  God  and  Father  has  bestowed. 

A  comparison  of  passages  shows  the  reference  to  Christ's 
"  mysterious  Name  "  (xix.  12)  to  be  quite  irrelevant  to  Mr. 
Liddon's  object.  From  ii.  17,  we  learn  that  to  him  who 
overcometh  Christ  will  "  give  a  white  stone,  and  on  the  stone 


CHRI3TOLOGY    OF   THE    APOCALYPSE.  149 

a  name  written  which  no  one  knoweth  saving  he  that  re- 
ceiveth  it."  In  iii.  12,  Christ  is  made  to  say,  "  Upon  him  that 
overcometh  I  will  write  the  Name  of  my  God,  and  the  name 
of  the  city  of  my  God,  and  my  new  Name."  Again,  in  xiv.  1, 
the  hundred  and  forty-four  thousand  are  introduced,  who  (ac 
cording  to  the  true  reading)  have  "  the  Lamb's  Name,  and  His 
Father's  Name,  written  on  their  foreheads."  These  texts 
evince  that  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  argue  from  the  reception 
and  bearing  of  a  name,  to  the  possession  of  a  nature.  Christ 
is  denominated  the  Word  of  God,  and  is  said  to  have  "  on 
His  vesture,  and  on  His  thigh,  a  name  written,  King  of  kings, 
and  Lord  of  lords  "  (xix.  13  and  16;  comp.  xvii.  14) ;  expres 
sions  which  leave  no  doubt  the  writer  proposed  to  attribute 
to  Christ  a  very  high  exaltation,  and  to  assign  Him  a  special 
nearness  to  God,  but  they  do  not  rise  to  the  height  which  the 
doctrine  of  Christ's  Essential  Godhead  requires.  That  doc 
trine,  though  mysterious,  and  beyond  the  reach  of  reason,  is, 
nevertheless,  capable  of  very  simple,  unequivocal  statement; 
and  no  man  who  held  it  would  (unless  designedly  reserved) 
resort  to  cloudy  periphrasis,  vague  imagery,  and  inferential 
metaphors.  Mr.  Liddon  finds  no  difficulty  whatever  in  put 
ting  a  plain  assertion  of  Christ's  Godhead  into  at  least  half-a- 
dozen  different  shapes,  and  there  is  no  ground  for  conjecturing 
poverty  of  language  prevented  the  Apocalyptic  Seer  from 
doing  the  like. 

When  quoting  the  passage  ascriptive  of  the  titles,  "  King 
of  kings,  and  Lord  of  lords,"  Mr.  Liddon  connects  with  it  a 
reference  to  1  Tim.  vi.  15,  and  rightly,  if  the  titles  are  not 
Names  of  God  "  written  upon  "  Christ,  inasmuch  as  a  com 
parison  of  the  texts  brings  into  view  the  wide  difference 
between  the  Almighty  Father  and  the  glorified  Jesus,  the 
Prince  of  the  kings  of  the  earth  (i.  5).  Christ  may  be,  sub 
ject  to  the  Most  High,  King  of  kings,  &c.,  but  He  is  not 
The  Blessed  and  only  Potentate  Who  alone  hath  Immortality. 
The  difference  of  the  descriptions  is  more  instructive  than 
their  partial  agreement.  With  regard  to  the  "  mysterious 
name,"  Dr.  Davidson  says :  — 


150  CHRISTOLOGY   OF  THE   APOCALYPSE. 

"  The  new  name  is  the  unutterable  name,  yet  the  name 
does  not  imply  that  the  nature  of  Jehovah  belongs  to  Mes 
siah.  It  is  an  old  Rabbinic  tradition,  that  the  appellation 
Jehovah  belongs  to  three  things,  —  the  Messiah,  the  righteous, 
and  Jerusalem ;  which  is  proved  by  Jer.  xxiii.  6 ;  Isa.  xliii. 
7 ;  Ezek.  xlviii.  35.  It  is  highly  probable  that  the  Apocalyp- 
tist  alludes  to  this  tradition,  because  the  faithful  are  repre 
sented  as  having  the  name  of  God,  and  that  of  the  New 
Jerusalem,  and  the  new  name  of  Messiah,  written  on  their 
foreheads,  which  name  is  Jehovah.  Besides,  the  angel  Meta 
tron,  in  Jewish  doctrine,  is  also  called  '  Jehovah,'  showing 
that  the  title  is  given  to  creatures"  (Introduction  to  New 
Testament,  vol.  i.  p.  333).* 

When  Mr.  Liddon  writes :  "  His  (Christ's)  grace  is  the 
blessing  of  Christians  (xxii.  21),"  I  presume  he  wishes  his 
readers  to  draw  the  inference  Christ  is  God,  but  the  inference 
is  groundless.  No  truthful  expositor  of  Scripture  will  deny 
Christ's  function  as  the  channel  and  minister  of  favor  and 
spiritual  blessings  from  God;  and  since  God  has  invested 
Him  with  authority,  and  made  Him  Head  of  the  Church,  the 
wish  that  favor  and  blessing  from  Him  may  be  with  Chris- 

*  "  The  Metatron  in  Jewish  conception  was  one  of  the  three  highest 
angels,  who  was  permitted  to  sit  in  the  divine  chamber  and  write  down 
the  virtues  of  the  Israelites.  His  name  is  like  that  of  his  Master,  i  e., 
Shaddai  (Mighty  One;  Almighty).  The  distinction  made  between  him 
and  other  angels  is,  that  he  sits  with  God  in  the  innermost  apartment, 
while  the  rest  hear  the  divine  command  before  the  veil.  Hence  he  is 
called  Prince  of  the  Face,  i.e.,  who  stands  before  God.  .  .  .  The  relation 
of  the  Metatron  to  the  Shekinah  is  fluctuating.  .  .  .  He  may  have  been 
a  kind  of  Mediator,  the  revealer  of  Jehovah,  the  investiture  of  the  She 
kinah  ;  but  he  was  never  thought  of  as  properly  Divine.  Instead  of  par 
ticipating  in  God's  Essence,  he  was  His  instrument.  While  explaining 
the  Angel  of  Jehovah  by  Metatron,  later  Jews,  far  from  making  him 
Jehovah's  fellow,  God  eternally  proceeding  from  the  unseen  Creator, 
have  believed  that  he  was  a  created  angel  of  exalted  rank  "  (Dr.  David 
son,  Theological  Review,  January,  1870). 

Mr.  Westcott,  in  treating  the  same  subject  (Introduction  to  the  Gospels), 
coincides  with  Dr.  Davidson  in  judging  "  Schottgen's  arguments  rest 
ing  on  the  convertibility  of  the  terms  /Shekinah,  Metatron,  &c.,  with  Messiah, 
to  be  unwarranted." 


CHRISTOLOGY   OF   THE    APOCALYPSE.  151 

tians  was  a  most  natural  and  pious  wish  for  Apostles  to 
express ;  but  where  in  these  facts  is  the  excuse  for  the  deduc 
tion  Christ  is  God,  and  therefore  the  Supreme  Independent 
Sour.ce  of  spiritual  gifts  ?  Scripture  nowhere  exhibits  Him 
in  such  a  character,  and,  if  Mr.  Liddon  were  in  the  habit  of 
looking  to  contexts,  he  would  have  observed  that  in  the  con 
cluding  paragraph  of  the  Apocalypse,  God  and  the  Lord 
Jesus  are  mentioned  in  a  manner  which  strongly  marks  their 
distinct  individualities. 

Mr.  Liddon  sees  the  climax  of  Apocalyptic  significance  in 
"  the  representation  of  Christ  in  His  wounded  Humanity 
upon  the  throne  of  the  Most  High.  The  Lamb,  as  It  had 
been  slain,  is  in  the  very  centre  of  the  court  of  heaven  (v.  6)  ; 
He  receives  the  prostrate  adoration  of  the  highest  intelli 
gences  around  the  throne  (v.  8),  and,  as  the  Object  of  that 
solemn,  uninterrupted,  awful  worship  (v.  12),  He  is  associated 
with  the  Father,  as  being  in  truth  one  with  the  Almighty, 
Uncreated,  Supreme  God  (v.  13;  comp.  xvii.  14)."  Now,  in 
vii.  17,  the  Lamb  is  represented  as  being  in  the  midst  of  the 
throne ;  and  in  xxii.  1  and  3  verses,  "  the  throne  of  God 
and  of  the  Lamb  "  is  mentioned ;  but  the  association  with 
God  upon  His  throne  is  illustrated  and  explained  by  the 
language  of  ii.  26,  27 ;  iii.  21 :  "  He  that  overcometh  and 
keepeth  my  works  unto  the  end,  to  him  will  I  give  power 
over  the  nations  (or  Gentiles),  and  he  shall  rule  them  with 
a  rod  of  iron,  as  earthen  vessels  are  shattered ;  as  I  also  have 
received  of  my  Father."  "  To  him  that  overcometh  will  I 
grant  to  sit  down  with  me  on  my  throne,  as  I  also  overcame, 
and  have  sat  down  with  my  Father  on  His  throne."  Mr. 
Liddon  seems  to  have  neglected  these  texts,  feeling,  perhaps, 
they  were  not  suited  to  elucidate  his  argument,  though  he 
would  be  the  last  to  question  the  accuracy,  wisdom,  and  pro 
found  meaning  of  the  language  which  St.  John  has  ascribed 
to  our  Lord. 

With  respect  to  "  the  prostrate  adoration  of  the  highest 
intelligences  round  the  throne,"  it  should  be  borne  in  mind 
the  chorus  of  praise  to  the  Lamb  —  "  The  Lion  of  the  tribe 


152  CHRISTOLOGY   OF   THE   APOCALYPSE. 

of  Judah  and  the  root  of  David  "  (v.  5)  —  is  in  connection 
with  the  opening  of  a  book  which  he  receives  from  the  hand 
of  God.  The  association  with  God  in  the  reception  of  pros 
trate  homage  appears  only  in  chap.  v. ;  elsewhere  such  hom 
age  is  limited  to  the  Lord  God  Almighty,  and  injunctions 
are  given  to  worship  Jlim.  The  terms  of  the  new  song  in 
which  the  worthiness  of  the  Lamb  is  celebrated  virtually 
exclude  the  idea  of  His  Godhead  :  "  Thou  art  worthy  to  take 
the  book,  and  to  open  the  seals  thereof;  for  thou  wast  slain, 
and  hast  redeemed  unto  God  by  thy  blood  from  out  of  every 
kindred,  and  tongue,  and  people,  and  nation,  and  hast  made 
them  a  kingdom  and  priests  unto  our  God  (comp.  i.  6),  and 
they  shall  reign  upon  the  earth."  Again,  in  v.  12,  "  Worthy 
is  the  Lamb  that  was  slain  to  take  (or  receive)  the  power, 
and  riches,  and  wisdom,"  &c. ;  and  in  v.  13,  and  elsewhere, 
He  that  sittetli  upon  the  throne  is  clearly  distinguished  from 
the  Lamb.  There  is  no  trace  of  identity,  or  unity  of  nature, 
and  a  very  manifest  separation  of  persons. 

Few  men  who  had  read  the  revelation  of  St.  John  care 
fully  through  would  have  ventured  to  affirm,  even  in  Uni 
versity  Sermons  on  our  Lord's  Divinity,  that  Christ  is  therein 
represented  "  as  being  in  truth  one  with  the  Almighty,  Uncre 
ated,  Supreme  God."  If  a  theologian  can  bring  himself  to 
the  conviction  Christ  is,  in  the  Apocalypse,  on  a  level  with 
the  Lord  God  Almighty,  argument  will,  of  course,  be  unavail 
ing  ;  he  is  clothed  in  armor  of  prepossession  which  neither 
facts  nor  reasoning  can  penetrate. 

Besides  the  texts  to  which  allusion  has  already  been  made, 
the  following  will  help  to  throw  light  on  the  Apocalyptist's 
estimate  of  our  Lord's  Person,  and  on  his  ascription  of  an 
unrivalled  supremacy  to  God,  as  the  One  Uncreated  Source 
and  Possessor  of  Majesty  and  power. 

"  A  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  God  gave  unto  Him," 
&c.  (i.  1).  "Jesus  Christ  hath  made  us  a  kingdom  and 
priests  unto  His  God  and  Father"  (i.  6). 

In  iii.  12,  the  glorified  Saviour  repeatedly  uses  the  expres 
sion  my  God,  an  expression  which,  according  to  the  true  read 
ing,  he  also  uses  iii.  2. 


CHPJSTOLOGY   OF   THE   APOCALYPSE.  153 

In  xv.  3  and  4,  we  find  "  The  song  of  Moses,  the  servant 
of  God,  and  the  song  of  the  Lamb,"  addressed  to  the  Lord 
God  Almighty,  Who  is  called  alone  Holy. 

The  distinction  between  our  God  and  His  Christ  (or 
Anointed),  is  marked  in  xi.  15 ;  xii.  10.  The  separate  indi 
vidualities  are  also  seen  in  xii.  17 ;  xiv.  4  and  12  ;  xx.  6 ; 
xxi.  22. 

Among  Christians  versed  in  the  traditional  dogmatic  an 
alysis  of  the  Divine  Nature,  recognition  of  distinct  Person 
alities  in  God  and  Christ,  may,  without  risk,  be  couched  in 
language  which,  when  taken  alone,  is  almost  necessarily  open 
to  misconstruction.  But  the  New  Testament  Scriptures 
addressed  recent  converts  with  a  view  to  their  edification, 
and,  by  Protestant  supposition,  address  also  all  Christians  as 
long  as  the  world  shall  last,  for  the  very  purpose  of  affording 
doctrinal  proof  and  verification ;  yet  neither  guarding  expla 
nation  nor  unambiguous  avowal  is  provided  to  shelter  the 
separate  personal  designations  of  God  and  Jesus  Christ 
from  the  invasions  of  imperfect  knowledge  and  hostile 
thought. 


CHAPTER    VI. 

Illuminative  action  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  presumed  resulting  unity  of 
Apostolic  doctrine.  —  The  "incidental  expressions  implying  a  high 
Christology  in  St.  James's  Epistle,"  considered.  —  Supposed  evidence 
favorable  to  the  dogma  of  Christ's  Godhead,  in  St.  Peter's  Missionary 
Sermons.  —  Difficulty  involved  in  the  constant  ascription  of  our 
Lord's  Resurrection  to  the  power  of  the  Almighty  Father. —  How 
far  are  John  ii.  19,  x.  18,  able  to  bear  out  the  summary  assertion, 
"  Christ  raises  Himself  from  the  dead  ?" —  Argument  from  the  Mis 
sionary  Sermons  continued. — Argument  from  St.  Peter's  General 
Epistles.  — "  St.  Jude's  implications  that  Christ  is  God."  —  Rational 
statement  of  the  evidential  purport  of  the  documents  referred  to  in 
this  Chapter. 

THE  full  recognition  of  Christ's  Godhead  by  the  Apostles 
Mr.  Liddon  refers  to  the  enlightening  influences  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  imparted  subsequently  to  Christ's  ascension. 

"  The  Holy  Spirit  (St.  John  xiv.  26 ;  xv.  26 ;  xvi.  13,  14, 
15)  was  to  bring  the  Words  and  Works  and  Character  of 
Jesus  before  the  illuminated  intelligence  of  the  Apostles. 
The  school  of  the  Spirit  was  to  be  the  school  of  reflection. 
But  it  was  not  to  be  the  school  of  legendary  invention. 
Acts,  which,  at  the  time  of  their  being  witnessed  might  have 
appeared  trivial  or  commonplace,  would  be  seen,  under  the 
guidance  of  the  Spirit,  to  have  had  a  deeper  interest.  Words, 
to  which  a  transient  or  local  value  had  been  assigned  at  first, 
would  now  be  felt  to  invite  a  world- wide  and  eternal  mean 
ing.  'These  things  understood  not  His  disciples  at  the  first' 
(St.  John  xii.  14-16),  is  true  of  much  else  besides  the  entry 
into  Jerusalem.  Moral,  spiritual,  physical  powers  which, 
though  unexplained,  could  never  have  passed  for  the  product 
of  purely  human  activity,  would  in  time  be  referred  by  the 
Invisible  Teacher  to  their  true  source ;  they  would  be  re 
garded  with  awe  as  the  very  rays  of  Deity.* 

*  Mr.  Liddon  seems  here  to  forget  that  our  Lord,  in  connection  appar 
ently  with  a  contemplated  increase  of  His  own  power  (the  power  of 


INSTRUCTIVE   OFFICE   OF   THE   SPIRIT.  155 

"  Thus  the  work  of  the  Spirit  would  but  complete,  system 
atize,  digest,  the  results  of  previous  natural  observation. 
Certainly  it  was  always  impossible  that  any  man  could  '  say 
that  Jesus  Vas  the  Lord  but  by  the  Holy  Ghost.'  The  inward 
teaching  of  the  Holy  Ghost  alone  could  make  the  Godhead 
of  Jesus  a  certainty  of  faith  as  well  as  a  conclusion  of  the 
intellect.  But  the  intellectual  conditions  of  belief  were  at 
first  inseparable  from  natural  contact  with  the  living  Human 
Form  of  Jesus  during  the  years  of  His  earthly  Life.  Our 
Lord  implies  this  in  saying,  'Ye  also  shall  bear  witness, 
because  ye  have  been  with  Me  from  the  beginning.'  The 
Apostles  lived  with  One  Who  combined  an  exercise  of  the 
highest  miraculous  powers  with  a  faultless  human  character, 
and  Who  asserted  Himself,  by  implication  and  expressly, 
to  be  personally  God.  The  Spirit  strengthened  and  formal 
ized  that  earlier  and  more  vague  belief  which  was  created 
by  His  language ;  but  it  was  His  language  which  had  fallen 
on  the  natural  ears  of  the  Apostles,  and  which  was  the  ger 
minal  principle  of  their  riper  faith  in  His  Divinity"  (pp.  271- 
72). 

When  a  portion  of  St.  John  xvi.  13  is  quoted  as  the  very 
words  of  Jesus  himself,  we  are  naturally  led  to  ponder  the 
reason  given  for  the  Spirit's  being  a  guide  in  all  the  truth : 
he  will  not  speak  from  himself  ;  but  whatsoever  he  shall  hear, 
he  will  speak.  Is  this  language  properly  applicable  to  the 
Third  of  the  Co-equal  Persons  in  the  Divine  Substance,  or 
likely  to  have  been  used  by  the  Second  ? 

Essential  Godhead  ?)  through  His  going  to  the  Father,  is  said  by  the 
Fourth  Evangelist  to  have  declared  :  "  He  that  believeth  on  me,  the 
works  that  I  do  shall  he  do  also ;  and  greater  than  these  shall  he  do, 
because  I  am  going  to  the  Father,"  &c.  (John  xiv.  12  ;  comp.  St.  Matt. 
xxi.  21).  The  writer  of  the  Acts  regards  both  Christ  and  the  Apostles 
as  the  Almighty's  instruments  in  miraculous  works,  God  wrought  through 
Him  and  through  them  (ii.  22;  xv.  12;  6ta,  with  the  genitive  case  in  both 
instances).  That  any  of  Christ's  first  followers  saw,  or  were  at  all  dis 
posed  to  see,  in  His  miracles  tokens  of  His  personal  Deity,  is  an  idea  not 
rationally  deducible  from  the  language  of  Scripture.  That  the  Church, 
after  the  Apostles'  days,  may  have  been  led  by  the  Spirit  to  discern  and 
teach  more  than  the  Scriptures  reveal,  I  do  not  deny. 


156 

When,  again,  the  expression  of  St.  Paul  (1  Cor.  xii.  3),  N~o 
man  can  say  that  Jesus  is  Lord,  but  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  is 
appropriated,  what  excuse  is  there  for  insinuating  that  the 
expression  intimates  the  Godhead  of  Jesus  ?  The  acknowl 
edgment  of  Christ's  Lordship  is,  by  the  Apostle,  opposed  to 
the  assertion,  Jesus  is  accursed,  —  an  assertion  which  no  man 
divinely  inspired  can  make ;  and,  in  verses  5  and  6,  the  same 
Lord  and  the  same  God  are  as  clearly  distinguished  as  are 
the  ministrations  or  services  in  the  Church  over  which  the 
former  presides,  and  the  spiritual  operations  of  which  the 
latter  is  the  source.  The  immediate  context  demonstrates 
Lord  and  God  not  to  have  been  in  the  writer's  intention 
synonymous,  and  further  the  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians 
contains  apparently  invincible  testimony  St.  Paul  did  not 
believe  Christ  to  be  God. 

But  detailed  criticism  of  the  flaws  and  assumptions  which 
disfigure  the  extract  I  have  made  is  superfluous.  I  am  con 
cerned  only  with  the  more  prominent  features  of  Mr.  Lid- 
don's  method  and  argument.  His  statement  invites  us  to  look 
for  the  signs  of  completeness,  system,  and  mental  digestion 
in  the  pages  of  the  New  Testament,  regarding  the  great 
topic  upon  which  he  discourses.  The  premise  that  Scripture 
sets  forth  with  practical  explicitness  all  necessary  Christian 
doctrine  binds  the  orthodox  Protestant  to  the  estimate  which 
is  here  advanced  respecting  the  work  of  the  Spirit. 

In  conformity  with  this  estimate,  therefore,  Mr.  Liddon 
detects  implications  and  assertions  of  Christ's  Deity  in  the 
Epistles  of  SS.  James,  Peter,  and  Jude. 

"  The  engrafted  word  (James  i.  21)  is  the  very  substance 
and  core  of  the  doctrine ;  it  is  He  in  Whom  the  doctrine 
centres ;  it  is  the  Person  of  Jesus  Christ  Himself  Whose 
Humanity  is  the  Sprout,  Shoot,  or  Branch  of  Judah,  engrafted 
by  His  Incarnation  upon  the  old  stock  of  humanity,  and 
sacramentally  engrafted  upon  all  living  Christian  souls  .  . 
St.  James's  doctrine  of  the  Engrafted  Word  is  a  compendium 
of  the  first,  third,  and  sixth  chapters  of  St.  John's  Gospel ; 
the  word  written  or  preached  does  but  unveil  to  the  soul  the 


CHRISTOLOGY   OF   ST.    JAMES'S   EPISTLE.  157 

Word  Incarnate,  the  Word  Who  can  give  a  new  life  to 
human  nature,  because  He  is  Himself  the  Source  of  Life " 
(p.  289).  A  glance  at  the  context  ought  to  have  suppressed 
this  reckless  empty  verbiage.  From  verses  17  and  18,  we 
learn  that  the  Father  of  Lights,  the  Giver  of  every  good  and 
perfect  gift,  begat  us  of  His  own  will,  by  the  word  (logos) 
of  truth.  The  word  is  just  afterwards  described  as  the 
engrafted  or  implanted  word,  which  is  able  to  save  our  souls, 
and  we  are  exhorted  to  be  doers  of  it,  and  not  self-deceiving 
hearers  only.  Incontestably,  the  implanted  word  is  the  mes 
sage  and  teaching  of  God,  in  the  Gospel.  That  St.  James's 
few  words  are  a  compendium  of  the  first,  third,  and  sixth 
chapters  of  the  latest  Evangelist  is  a  discovery  of  great 
originality  and  magnitude,  but  unfortunately  altogether 
incapable  of  verification. 

To  the  compendious  allegation,  St.  James  "  appears  to  apply 
the  word  Lord  throughout  his  Epistle  to  the  God  of  the  Old 
Testament  and  to  Jesus  Christ,  quite  indifferently,"  exception 
may  be  taken.  The  Epistle  has  throughout  a  markedly 
Hebraistic  complexion.  The  author's  mind  is  possessed  by 
the  language  and  tone  of  the  Old  Testament,  to  which  he 
continually  refers.  We  cannot  be  sure,  therefore,  that  by 
the  denomination  Lord  simply,  he  ever  means  other  than  the 
Almighty  God.  The  strong  probability  no  doubt  is,  that 
when  he  mentioned  the  coming  of  the  Lord  (v.  7,  8),  he  had 
in  view  the  expected  coming  of  Christ ;  but  even  there  his 
thoughts  may  have  been  directed  to  a  visitation  of  God,  and 
his  phraseology  may  have  been  employed  in  the  Jewish  rather 
than  the  distinctively  Christian  meaning.  When  he  adduces 
the  prophets  who  spoke  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  (v.  10)  as 
examples  of  suffering  and  patience,  he  evidently  alludes  to 
the  divinely  commissioned  teachers  of  the  earlier  Covenant ; 
and  when  he  enjoins  prayer,  and  the  anointing  of  the  sick 
in  the  Name  of  the  Lord,  since  it  is  certain  the  prayer  was 
to  be  addressed  to  the  Most  High,  and  not  to  Christ,  the  pre 
sumption  is,  that,  in  verses  14  and  15,  the  word  Lord  is  put 
for  God.  In  verse  12  of  the  first  chapter  of  the  Epistle,  the 


158  DIFFERENT   BASES   IN   SCRIPTURE 

Lord  is  interpolated,  and  the  connection  in  which  verse  7 
stands  shows  Lord  to  be  there  a  title  of  God.  An  attentive 
reading  of  the  Epistle  leads  us  to  conclude  Jesus  Christ  is 
not  called  simply  Lord  until  the  last  chapter,  and  perhaps  is 
not  so  called  there.  But,  if  he  had  been,  the  fact  would  have 
carried  no  sort  of  indication  of  his  Godhead.  Believing  St. 
James's  teaching  to  harmonize  completely  with  St.  Paul's, 
Mr.  Liddon  should  have  remembered  St.  Paul's  fundamental 
and  unconditionally  avowed  position ;  to  Christians  there  is 
one  God,  the  Father,  and  one  Lord,  Jesus  Christ  (1  Cor. 
viii.  4-6  ;  Eph.  iv.  6 ;  1  Tim.  ii.  5).  The  title  God  of  course 
includes  the  title  Lord,  but  there  is  a  pitiable  violation  of 
reason  and  evidence  involved  in  the  inference,  God  and 
Christ  are  in  nature  and  dignity  identical,  because  each  is 
denominated  Lord.  If  the  Scriptures  teach  any  thing  unam 
biguously  to  a  docile  and  intelligent  mind,  they  teach  that 
Christ's  lordship  and  the  Almighty's  Lordship  rest  on  different 
bases.  The  former,  whatever  may  be  its  extent,  is  derived, 
imparted,  and  subordinate ;  the  latter  is  absolutely  underived, 
independent,  and  supreme.  God  has  made  Jesus  both  Lord 
and  Christ  (Acts  ii.  36),  has  highly  exalted  him,  and  given  him 
a  name  which  is  above  every  name,  &c.  (Phil  ii.  9).  St.  Paul, 
who  uniformly  attributes  the  resurrection  of  Christ  to  the 
power  of  God  the  Father,  declares  that  to  this  end  Christ 
both  died  and  lived,  that  He  might  have  lordship  over  both 
dead  and  living  (Rom.  xiv.  9).  That  our  Lord's  dominion, 
however  vast  and  transcendent,  is  distinguished  from  the 
dominion  of  the  Almighty,  by  derivation  and  bestowal,  is  a 
Scriptural  truth  which  may  indeed  be  explained  away,  but 
cannot  be  denied.  And,  even  to  minds  tied  and  bound  by 
predeterminations,  the  constant  want  of  reference  to  the 
ground  of  inherent  eternal  Godhead  must  appear  most 
puzzling.  How  does  it  come  to  pass  that  Evangelists  and 
Apostles,  under  the  completing  and  systematizing  tuition  of 
the  Spirit,  ascribe  to  donation  and  investiture  the  empire 
and  the  might  which,  by  the  hypothesis  of  Christ's  proper 
Deity,  attach  to  His  Essential  Personal  Being  no  less  than 


FOR  CHRIST'S  LORDSHIP  AND  GOD'S.  159 

to  the  Being  of  the  Everlasting  Father?  It  the  doctrine  of 
Christ's  Personal  Divinity  was  an  item  in  the  primitive  Gos 
pel  message,  and  if  the  Scriptures  contain  the  faith  originally 
delivered  to  the  saints,  it  is  an  utterly  inexplicable  thing  that 
our  Lord's  power  and  lordship  should  not  often  be  annexed 
to  His  Ineffable  Unoriginated  Nature,  from  which  they  would 
inevitably  and  inalienably  flow. 

The  true  reading  of  iv.  12  most  probably  is:  One  is  the 
Lawgiver  and  Judge,  Who  is  able  to  save  and  to  destroy ; 
and  Mr.  Liddon  supplies  the  following  commentary  :  "  Espe 
cially  noteworthy  is  St.  James's  assertion  that  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  the  Judge  of  men,  is  not  the  delegated  representative 
of  an  absent  Majesty,  but  is  Himself  the  Legislator  enforcing 
His  own  laws.  The  Lawgiver,  he  says,  is  One  Being  with 
the  Judge  Who  can  save  and  can  destroy ;  the  Son  of  Man, 
coming  in  the  clouds  of  heaven,  has  enacted  the  law  which 
He  thus  administers."  There  is  here  a  purely  gratuitous, 
and  totally  improbable  assumption.  The  One  Lawgiver  and 
Judge  is  Almighty  God,  in  Whom  alone  the  prerogatives  of 
judgment  and  legislation  ultimately  and  independently  reside. 
The  most  exalted  estimate  of  Christ's  prerogative  is  that, 
through  Him,  the  precepts  of  God  are  communicated  (John 
vii.  16,  17 ;  viii.  26,  28  ;  xii.  49,  50 ;  xiv.  10,  24),  and  through 
Him  as  a  delegate  and  representative  the  function  of  judg 
ment  is  exercised.  His  own  teaching,  as  understood  by  His 
Apostles,  was,  He  is  ordained  by  God  the  Judge  of  quick 
and  dead  (Aets  x.  42) ;  through  Him  God  will  judge  the 
secrets  of  men  (Rom.  ii.  16) ;  and  so  His  judgment-seat  is 
the  judgment-seat  of  God  (comp.  Rom.  xiv.  10,  where  the 
correct  text  is  judgment-seat  of  God,  with  2  Cor.  v.  10).  To 
Him  the  Father  has  given  all  judgment,  and  has  given  Him 
authority  to  execute  judgment  also  /  not  because  He  is  the 
Original  Lawgiver,  and  in  nature  one  with,  and  equal  to,  the 
Father;  but  because  He  is  the  Son  of  Man  (John  v.  22,  27). 
From  the  Old  Testament,  the  Apostle  James  would  certainly 
learn  that  the  One  Lawgiver  and  Judge  is  the  Lord  of  Hosts  ; 
and  nothing  in  the  Gospel  (presuming  always  that  the  New 


160  ACCESS   TO    GOD   THROUGH   CHRIST 

Testament  sufficiently  exhibits  the  Gospel)  would  so  modify 
his  knowledge  as  to  warrant  the  supposition  his  language 
was  intended  to  denote  any  other  than  God  Most  High. 
The  fundamental  agreement  of  SS.  Paul  and  James  would, 
we  may  fairly  conclude,  cover  the  doctrine  which  the  former 
proclaims  (Acts  xvii.  31),  "  God  has  appointed  a  day,  in  which 
He  will  judge  the  world  in  righteousness  by  the  Man  whom 
He  hath  ordained ;  having  given  assurance  to  all  men,  in 
raising  Him  from  the  dead." 

Those  who  yield  themselves  to  obey  the  messages  of  God 
sent  to  mankind  in  and  through  Christ  are  at  once  the  ser 
vants  or  slaves  of  God,  and  the  servants  or  slaves  of  Christ. 
In  serving  their  Master,  Christ,  they  become  acceptable  ser 
vants  of  God,  bringing  forth  the  fruit  of  righteousness,  which 
is  through  Jesus  Christ  to  His  glory  (Rom.  xiv.  18;  Phil.  i. 
11).  The  pervading  Scriptural  conception  is,  that,  in  keep 
ing  the  sayings  and  following  the  example  of  our  Lord,  we 
render  service  to  God.  Until  the  revelation  dispensed  through 
the  post- Apostolic  Church,  concerning  Christ's  Person,  has 
engrossed  our  minds  sufficiently  to  supersede  the  rational 
meaning  of  the  revelation  given  in  the  New  Testament,  we 
must  look  upon  the  service  of  God  as  the  higher  end  to  be 
reached  in,  and  by  means  of,  the  service  of  the  Captain  of 
OUT  salvation  —  the  Son  by  whom  God  has  in  these  last  times 
addressed  and  instructed  us.  Indisputably,  the  Apostles 
write  as  if  they  designed  to  lead  us  through  Christ,  up  to 
our  God  and  Father.  Only  the  supernaturally  aided  insight 
of  the  Church,  disclosing  truths  practically  new,  can  detect 
a  design  to  equalize  God  and  Christ  as  Objects  of  Christian 
service.  The  habitual  sequence  of  Apostolic  thought,  from 
whatever  point  of  view  the  Christian's  standing  was  sur 
veyed,  was :  Ye  are  Christ's  and  Christ  is  Q-ods  ;  the  Head 
of  Christ  is  Q-od  (1  Cor.  iii.  23 ;  xi.  3) ;  through  Christ  toe 
have  access  to  the  Father ;  He  brings  us  unto  God  (Eph. 
ii.  18 ;  1  Tim.  ii.  5  ;  Heb.  vii.  25 ;  1  Pet.  iii.  18).  Mr.  Liddon, 
however,  does  not  weigh  evidence ;  he  loses  sight  of  every 
thing  but  the  exigencies. of  the  tenet  he  has  undertaken  to 


THE   PERVADING   SCRIPTURAL   IDEA.  161 

uphold,  and  without  misgiving  gravely  observes  :  "  St.  James, 
although  our  Lord's  own  first  cousin,  opens  his  Epistle  by 
representing  himself  as  standing  in  the  same  relation  to 
Jesus  Christ  as  to  God.  He  is  the  slave  of  God,  and  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ." 

In  a  similar  style  of  extortionate  deduction  and  exaggerat 
ing  perversion  we  are  told  :  "  St.  James  hints  that  all  social 
barriers  between  man  and  man  are  as  nothing  when  we 
place  mere  human  eminence  in  the  light  of  Christ's. majestic 
Person ;  and  when  He  names  the  faith  of  Jesus  Christ,  he 
terms  it  with  solemn  emphasis,  '  the  faith  of  the  Lord  of 
Glory,'  thus  adopting  one  of  the  most  magnificent  of  St. 
Paul's  expressions,  and  attributing  to  our  Lord  a  Majesty 
altogether  above  this  human  world."  ^N"ow,  it  is  hard  to 
understand  what  valid  pretext  there  is  for  affirming  the 
Apostle  places  mere  human  eminence  "  in  the  light  of  Christ's 
majestic  Person,"  when  he  rebukes  an  unchristian  deference 
to  worldly  distinctions  of  rank  and  wealth.  The  influence 
of  our  Lord's  ethical  teachings,  which  have  descended  to  us 
through  the  First  Gospel,  is  clearly  traceable  in  St.  James's 
Epistle,  and  the  motive  of  his  language  may  be  more  prob 
ably  found  in  Christ's  precept,  all  ye  are  brethren  (Matt, 
xxiii.  8),  and  in  the  primary  Christian  duties  of  brotherly 
love  and  humility. 

In  James  ii.  1,  the  appellation  Lord  is  not  repeated  before 
the  words  of  glory.  The  Greek  is,  literally,  the  faith  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  of  Glory,  and  to  this  literal  rendering  the 
Vulgate  Version  adheres.  It  is  far  from  certain  our  Author 
ized  Version  has,  by  inserting  the  Lord,  conveyed  the  true 
sense,  though  the  construction  which  joins  glory  with  Lord 
is,  I  think,  to  be  preferred.  There  is  no  justification,  how 
ever,  for  Mr.  Liddon's  peremptory  assertion,  the  words  must 
be  so  joined.  He  ought  to  have  been  well  aware  that,  of 
glory  frequently  has  been,  and  may  quite  fairly  be,  construed 
with  the  faith.  Macknight  renders  the  faith  of  the  glory 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  remarking  that  in  so  doing  he 
follows  the  Syriac  translation.  Mr.  Liddon's  aim  is,  I  pre- 
11 


162  "  LORD  "    NOT   NECESSARILY  MEANS   GOD. 

sume,  to  suggest  supremacy  in  the  realm,  and  authority  in  the 
apportionment  of  glory ;  but  the  phrase  on  which  he  builds 
is,  by  the  pretty  general  verdict  of  interpreters,  both  ancient 
and  modern,  best  understood  as  a  Hebraism  for  glorious 
Lord.  He  himself  admits,  "  of  glory  may  be  an  epithetal 
genitive,  such  as  constantly  follows  the  mention  of  the  Divine 
Name ; "  but  if  it  is  equivalent  to  glorious,  its  explication  as 
applied  to  Christ  would  seem  most  naturally  to  be,  Who  has 
been  glorified,  and  it  would  refer  to  His  exaltation  and  in 
vestiture  with  glory  (1  Tim.  iii.  16;  1  Pet.  i.  21). 

But  whatever  rendering  is  given  to  the  phraseology  in 
question,  when  we  turn  to  "  one  of  the  most  magnificent  of 
St  Paul's  expressions "  (1  Cor.  ii.  8),  we  discover  a  context 
utterly  at  variance  with  the  inference  of  St.  Paul's  intention 
to  put  God  and  the  Lord  of  Glory  on  one  level  of  Un 
created  Nature  and  Dignity.  The  connection  of  thought 
may  possibly  be,  that  Christ  is  the  Lord  of  our  glory,  spoken 
of  in  the  earlier  portion  of  the  same  sentence ;  but  at  any 
rate  there  is  no  excuse  for  the  innuendo,  Lord  means  God, 
and  the  Lord  of  glory  is  synonymous  with  the  God  of  Glory 
(Acts  vii.  2),  or  with  the  God  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
the  Father  of  Glory  (Eph.  i.  17).  That  "  our  Lord's  Majesty 
is  altogether  above  this  human  world,"  is  a  circumstance 
which  has  no  decisive  bearing  on  the  point  at  issue ;  namely, 
the  origin  of  His  majesty,  and  its  quality  in  relation  to  the 
Majesty  of  the  Eternal  One. 

"A  few  passing '  expressions  of  the  lowliest  reverence  dis 
close  the  great  doctrine  of  the  Church  respecting  the  Person 
of  her  Lord,  throned  in  the  background  of  the  Apostle's 
thought.  And  if  the  immediate  interests  of  his  ministry 
oblige  St.  James  to  confine  himself  to  considerations  which 
do  not  lead  him  more  fully  to  exhibit  the  doctrine,  we  are 
not  allowed,  as  we  read  him,  to  forget  the  love  and  awe  which 
veil  and  treasure  it,  so  tenderly  and  so  reverently,  in  the  in 
most  sanctuary  of  his  illuminated  soul."  The  doctrine  is  too 
far  in  the  background,  and  too  closely  veiled,  for  the  eyes  of 
the  most  inquisitive  rational  discernment,  though  its  position 


THE    REAL    SENTIMENTS    OF    ST.    JAMES.  163 

of  inaccessible  obscurity  admirably  harmonizes  with  the  ex 
istence  of  an  authoritative  Church,  inspired  to  bring  to  light 
hidden  things,  and  prohibit  reason  from  the  exposition  of  the 
Sacred  Writings.  An  immovable  conviction  that  St.  James 
must  have  held  the  doctrine,  notwithstanding  all  he  says,  or 
does  not  say,  is  the  only  explanation  of  the  statement :  "  St. 
James's  recognition  of  the  doctrine  of  our  Lord's  Divinity  is 
just  what  we  might  expect  it  to  be,  if  we  take  into  account 
the  immediately  practical  scope  of  his  Epistle.  Our  Lord's 
Divinity  is  never  once  formally  proposed  as  a  doctrine  of  the 
faith,  but  it  is  largely,  although  indirectly,  implied.  It  is 
implied  in  language  which  would  be  exaggerated  and  over 
strained  on  any  other  supposition.  It  is  implied  in  a  reserve 
which  may  be  felt  to  mean  at  least  as  much  as  the  most 
demonstrative  protestations;"  in  other  words,  it  is  most 
impressively  inculcated  by  not  being  specified. 

What  the  sentiments  of  St.  James  really  were,  and  whether 
he  held  the  Godhead  to  be  an  Entity  comprising  co-equal 
Forms  or  Persons,  one  of  Whom  Jesus  Christ  is,  may  be 
gathered,  not  merely  from  the  entire  absence  of  formal  prop 
ositions  of  a  dogma  which  specially  needed  positive  enuncia 
tion,  but  also  from  expressions  and  statements  which  present 
the  Almighty  Father  as  the  One  Supreme  Object  of  prayer, 
and  faith,  and  devout  regard.  The  customary  separate  men 
tion  of  God,  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  with  which  the 
Epistle  opens,  is  in  itself  an  indication  of  separate  individu 
ality,  and  seemingly  not  in  accordance  with  the  idea  that 
both  the  Persons  named  are  truly  God,  being  included  in  one 
and  the  same  Divine  Nature.  Prayer  for  wisdom  is  to  be 
directed  to  God ;  and  religion,  pure  and  undefiled,  is  before, 
the  God  and  Father  (i.  5,  27).  God  has  chosen  the  poor  in 
the  world  to  be  rich  in  faith,  and  heirs  of  the  kingdom  which 
He  has  promised  to  them  that  love  Him  (ii.  5 ;  comp.  i.  12). 
Faith  that  there  is  One  God,  or  that  One  is  the  G-od,  is  com 
mended  (ii.  19),  without  a  word  of  precautionary  instruction 
showing  One  not  to  mean  One  Person,  but  One  Substance 
comprehending  Equal  Persons.  We  are  reminded :  With 


164  CHRISTOLOGY   OF    THE   ACTS 

the  tongue  bless  we  the  Lord  and  Father,  and  therewith 
curse  we  men  who  are  made  after  the  similitude  of  God 
(iii.  9).  Attachment  to  a  sinful  world  is  contrasted  with  de- 
Action  to  God,  and  God  is  recognized  as  the  source  of  grace 
and  mercy  (iv.  4-8).  Throughout  tne  Epistle  there  is  not 
the  faintest  trace  of  an  indication  of  the  writer's  knowing 
more  than  One  personal  God,  Whom  he  denominates  the 
G-od  and  Father  ;  the  One  God;  the  Lord  and  Father  ;  the 
Lord  of  Sdbaoth  (Hosts),  (v.  4). 

On  the  two  stages  of  St.  Peter's  recorded  teaching,  repre 
sented  respectively  by  his  missionary  sermons  in  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles,  and  by  his  general  Epistles,  Mr.  Lid  don  expa 
tiates  largely,  infusing  into  the  Apostle's  language  senses 
quite  foreign  to  a  reasonable  interpretation.  St.  Peter  is 
admitted  to  have  spoken  "of  our  Lord's  Humanity  with 
fearless  plainness." 

"  But  this  general  representation  of  the  Human  Nature  by 
Which  Christ  had  entered  into  Jewish  history  is  interspersed 
with  glimpses  of  His  Divine  Personality  Itself,  Which  is 
veiled  by  His  Manhood.  Thus  we  find  St.  Peter  in  the  Porch 
of  Solomon  applying  to  our  Lord  a  magnificent  title,  which 
at  once  carries  our  thoughts  into  the  very  heart  of  the  dis 
tinctive  Christology  of  St.  John.  Christ,  although  crucified 
and  slain,  is  yet  the  Leader  or  Prince  of  Life  (Acts  iii.  15). 
That  He  should  be  held  in  bondage  by  the  might  of  death 
was  not  possible  (ii.  24).  The  heavens  must  receive  Him 
(iii.  21) ;  and  He  is  now  the  Lord  of  all  things  (x.  36).  It 
is  He  Who  from  His  heavenly  throne  has  poured  out  upon 
the  earth  the  gifts  of  Pentecost  (ii.  33).  His  Name  spoken 
on  earth  has  a  wonder-working  power;  as  unveiling  His 
Nature  and  office,  it  is  a  symbol  which  faith  reverently 
treasures,  and  by  the  might  of  which  the  servants  of  God 
can  relieve  even  physical  suffering  (iii.  16;  iv.  10).  As  a 
refuge  for  sinners,  the  Name  of  Jesus  stands  alone ;  no  other 
Name  has  been  given  under  heaven,  whereby  the  one  true 
salvation  can  be  guaranteed  to  the  sons  of  men  (iv.  12). 
Here  St.  Peter  clearly  implies  that  the  religion  ot  Jesus  is 


AND    OF    ST.   PETER.  165 

the  true,  the  universal,  the  absolute  religion.  This  implica 
tion,  of  itself,  suggests  much  beyond,  as  to  the  true  dignity 
of  Christ's  Person.  Is  it  conceivable  that  He  Who  is  Him 
self  the  sum  and  substance  of  His  religion,  Whose  Name 
has  such  power  on  earth,  and  Who  wields  the  resources  and 
is  invested  with  the  glories  of  heaven,  is  notwithstanding  in 
the  thought  of  His  first  apostles  only  a  glorified  man,  or  only 
a  super-angelic  intelligence  ?  Do  we  not  interpret  these  early 
discourses  most  naturally,  when  we  bear  in  mind  the  measure 
of  reticence  which  active  missionary  work  always  renders 
necessary,  if  the  truth  is  to  win  its  way  amidst  prejudice 
and  opposition  ?  And  will  not  this  consideration  alone  ena 
ble  us  to  do  justice  to  those  vivid  glimpses  of  Christ's  Higher 
Nature,  the  fuller  exhibition  of  Which  is  before  us  in  the 
Apostle's  general  Epistles  ?  "  (p.  293.) 

Now  this  quotation  is  a  sample  of  the  sophistical  pleading, 
the  overstrained  deduction,  and  the  intrusion  of  extraneous 
ideas,  which  too  generally  characterize  Mr.  Liddon's  exegesis. 
When  we  calmly  examine  the  several  texts  to  which  he  appeals, 
we  find  contexts  which,  for  the  most  part,  bar  out  the  inter 
pretation  he  strives  with  such  pertinacity  to  introduce.  The 
title  Leader  or  Prince  does  not  betoken  the  position  of 
Deity,  in  the  possession  and  bestowal  of  life,  but  the  function 
of  Guide  and  Chieftain  in  the  way  which  leads  unto  life.  It 
is  employed  in  Heb.  ii.  10 ;  xii.  2 ;  and  we  should  especially 
compare  Acts  v.  31,  where  St.  Peter  uses  the  same  title,  and 
preaches  that  God  has  exalted  Christ  to  be  a  Leader  and  a 
Saviour.  A  commentary  which  exhausts  the  range  of  admis 
sible  significance  may  be  found  in  the  words  :  the  gift  of  God 
is  eternal  life  in  Christ  Jesus  Our  Lord  (Rom.  vi.  23) ;  God 
has  given  unto  us  eternal  life,  and  this  life  is  in  His  Son  (1 
John  v.  11).  St.  Peter  prefaced  his  application  of  the  title  by 
proclaiming  that  the  God  of  the  Patriarchs  had  glorified  His 
servant  Jesus,  the  holy  and  righteous  Man  whom  the  Jews 
had  denied,  and  to  whom  they  had  preferred  a  man  who  was 
a  murderer.  The  human  character  of  our  Lord  was  evidently 
in  the  mind  of  the  Apostle,  when  he  rapidly  contrasted 


166  MISSIONARY   SERMONS   OF   ST.    PETER. 

Christ's  moral  purity  and  excellence  with  the  guiltiness  of 
Barabbns,  thereby  giving  a  sharper  edge  to  the  accusation ; 
ye  killed  the  Leader  of  Life,  whom  God  has  raised  from  the 
dead.  The  nature  in  which  our  Lord  underwent  death  was 
certainly  not  His  Divine  Nature ;  but  the  description  Leader 
of  Life  is  immediately  conjoined  with  the  fact  of  His  death, 
and  followed  by  the  oft-repeated  declaration  (see  Acts  ii.  24  ; 
iv.  10;  v.  80  ;  x.  40),  "God  raised  Him  from  the  dead,"  — a 
declaration  which  defies  comprehension  on  the  nypothesis  of 
Christ's  being  accounted  Very  and  Eternal  God.  If  we  do 
not  take  the  standing  ground  of  a  Church  authority  not 
amenable  to  reason,  we  must  perceive  in  the  fact  of  Christ's 
resurrection  by  the  Almighty  Father's  power,  as  in  the  fact 
of  His  being  anointed  by  God  with  the  Holy  Ghost  (x.  38), 
an  implication  He  is  not  absolutely  God.  The  human  soul 
and  spirit  of  Jesus,  when  withdrawn  through  death  from  the 
flesh,  were,  according  to  the  Church's  teaching,  indissolubly 
joined  to  a  Personal  Deity  possessing  the  undiminished 
attributes  of  Godhead ;  what  necessity  and  what  room  were 
there,  then,  for  the  intervention  of  another  Personal  Deity  in 
bringing  about  the  resumption  of  the  flesh  ?  If  the  Petrine 
Christology  agreed  with  the  traditionally  Johannine,  and  if 
the  Logos  is,  in  the  full  and  perfect  sense,  God,  how  came 
the  Logos  to  be  quiescent,  and,  so  to  speak,  handled  by 
another,  in  the  great  event  of  His  resurrection?  When 
attempts  are  made  to  put  the  Church's  dogma  concerning 
Christ's  Person  on  the  basis  of  reasonable  deductions  from 
Scripture,  this  question  may  be  quite  reverently,  and  is  sure 
to  be  persistently,  pressed.  Definitions  which  the  language 
of  the  Sacred  Writings  is  said  to  prompt  and  certify  force 
the  inquiry  upon  us,  and,  after  human  words  have  been  ap 
plied  with  confident  exactness  to  the  most  mysterious  of  sub 
jects,  we  have  no  right  to  shield  ourselves,  under  the  plea 
of  inscrutable  mystery,  from  the  direct  consequences  of  our 
own  verbal  propositions.  The  ascription  of  Christ's  Resur 
rection  to  the  might  of  His  own  inherent  co-equal  Godhead  is 
what  reason,  starting  from  the  doctrine  of  His  Deity,  com- 


DID    CHRIST   RAISE   HIMSELF?  167 

pels  us  to  expect ;  but  Scripture  disappoints  reason,  by  making 
the  Resurrection  an  act  of  the  Almighty  Father.  This  is  a 
point  about  which  steady  faith  and  intellectual  honesty  can 
not  afford  to  shuffle.  If,  on  the  one  hand,  interpretation 
belongs  to  a  province  as  much  beyond  reason  as  is  the  most 
recondite  subject-matter  of  Divine  revelation,  then  we  are 
bound  to  confess  the  fact,  and  to  recognize  in  the  Church's 
dogmatic  instruction  not  the  rational  expansion  and  defini 
tion  of  clearer  intellectual  apprehension,  but  supplementary 
revelation,  completing  and  rendering  operative  an  otherwise 
defective  Rule  of  Faith.  Orthodox  exposition  is,  in  that 
case,  not  to  be  judged  by  the  intellect,  but  to  be  accepted 
submissively,  as  given  from  Above  through  the  instrumen 
tality  of  the  Church.  But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  interpreta 
tion  is  within  the  sphere  of  rational  judgment  and  research, 
then  the  constant  Apostolic  assertion  that  the  Almighty 
Father  raised  Christ  from  the  dead  is  pregnant  with  sugges 
tions  adverse  to  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  proper,  personal 
Deity. 

Mr.  Liddon  indeed,  relying  on  John  ii.  19,  x.  18,  summa 
rily  asserts,  in  his  Fourth  and  Seventh  Lectures,  "  Christ  raises 
Himself  from  the  dead  ;  "  and  thus  sets  two  statements  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel  against  about  twenty  unequivocal  passages  in 
the  Acts  and  the  Epistles.  The  Synoptic  Gospels,  moreover, 
contain  no  hint  that  our  Lord  ever  spoke  the  words,  Destroy 
this  temple,  and  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it  up.  If  He  had 
spoken  those  words,  there  would  have  been  as  much  of  truth 
as  falsehood  in  the  charge,  which  is  in  Matt.  xxvi.  60,  and 
Mark  xiv.  57,  imputed  to  false  witnesses.  But  what  is  of 
far  more  consequence  is  the  fact  that  the  explanatory  clause, 
He  spoke  of  the  temple  of  His  body,  &c.,  added  by  the  fourth 
Evangelist  (ii.  21),  is  in  itself  improbable  and  unsuitable,  and, 
judging  from  the  applications  of  Old  Testament  language  in 
Acts  ii.  27-32,  xiii.  33-57,  the  Scripture  which  the  disciples 
believed,  did  not  harmonize  with  the  opinion  :  "  fhrist  raised 
himself  from  the  dead."  Neander  and  Ewald,  in  their  Lives 
of  Christ,  though  they  both  hold  St.  John  to  have  been  the 


168  CHRIST'S  RESURRECTION 

author  of  the  Gospel  which  bears  his  name,  set  aside  the 
Evangelist's  exposition  as  being  only  an  accommodation  of 
words  whose  original  and  designed  import  was  different.  An 
instance  ot  similar  departure  from  the  sense  of  the  speaker 
quoted  is,  Neander  thinks,  observable  in  John  xviii.  9 ;  and 
his  own  view  of  "  the  most  natural  and  apparent  interpreta 
tion  of  the  words,  Destroy  this  temple,  &c.,"  is  substantially 
conveyed  in  Ewald's  statement  of  Christ's  "  precise  meaning 
in  that  riddle,"  — "  Your  whole  religion,  as  it  rests  on  this 
temple,  is  corrupt  and  perverted;  but  He  also  is  present,  who, 
when  it  passes  aw^ay,  as  it  must  pass  away,  will  easily  restore 
it  again,  in  far  higher  Majesty,  and  thus  is  able  to  accomplish 
not  merely  a  common  miracle,  as  you  ask,  but  the  very  high 
est  miracle." 

With  respect  to  John  x.  18,  the  brief  expression,  I  have 
power  to  take  my  life  again,  is  entitled  to  no  weight  against 
the  multitude  of  concurring  texts  which  explicitly  affirm 
Christ  to  have  been  raised  from  the  dead,  by  the  Father. 
And,  further,  whatever  power  may  be  ascribed  to  Christ  in 
any  portion  of  the  New  Testament,  that  power  is  not  said  to 
be  essentially  inherent,  independent,  and  self-originated,  but 
imparted  by,  and  derived  from,  the  Father,  and  is  therefore 
not  the  power  of  One  Who  is  by  nature  God,  but  of  one 
who  is  exalted  and  aggrandized  by  God. 

It  is  difficult  to  believe  Mr.  Liddon  could  have  imagined 
he  was  helping  his  argument,  when,  citing  Acts  ii.  24,  he 
said  "that  Christ  should  be  held  in  bondage  by  the  might  of 
death,  was  not  possible  ;  "  and  added  in  a  note,  "  This '  impos 
sibility  '  depended  not  merely  on  the  fact  that  prophecy  had 
predicted  Christ's  resurrection,  but  on  the  dignity  of  Christ's 
Person,  implied  in  the  existence  of  any  such  prophecy 
respecting  Him."  The  supposed  glimpses  of  Divine  Person 
ality  vanish  the  moment  we  examine  the  passage  in  which 
the  words  cited  stand  :  "  Jesus  the  Nazarite,  a  man  proved 
unto  you  (to  be)  from  God,  by  miracles,  and  wonders,  and 
signs,  which^God  did  through  Him  in  the  midst  of  you,  ye 
have  taken  and  by  wicked  hands  have  crucified  and  slain ; 


169 

whom  God  hath  raised  up,  having  loosed  the  pains  of  death, 
because  it  was  not  possible  that  He  should  be  holden  of  it ; " 
—  then  follows  a  quotation  from  the  16th  Psalm,  together 
with  an  intimation  that,  with  prophetic  foresight  of  Christ's 
resurrection,  David  prayed  to  God,  "  Thou  wilt  not  leave  my 
soul  in  Hades,  neither  wilt  Thou  suffer  Thy  holy  one  to  see 
corruption "  (comp.  Acts  xiii.  35-37).  The  human  nature 
of  Jesus,  and  the  power  of  God  acting  upon  it,  are  exclusively 
and  conspicuously  present  in  the  passage.  How  is  "the 
dignity  of  Christ's  Person"  (by  which  Mr.  Liddon  means 
His  Godhead)  implied  in  the  existence  of  a  prophecy  that 
God  would  not  leave  Him  in  Hades,  nor  suffer  His  flesh  to 
see  corruption;  and,  in  the  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy, 
announced  by  St.  Peter,  This  Jesus  hath  Gfod  raised  up  ?* 

The  context,  again,  dispels  the  insinuation  Mr.  Liddon 
seeks  to  convey  through  the  words,  whom  the  heavens  must 
receive  until  the  times  of  restitution  of  all  things  (iii.  21).  I 
do  not  see  what  is  gained  by  putting  a  special  emphasis 
on  must,  since  that  word  is  no  more  specially  emphatic  than 
two  or  three  other  words  in  the  sentence.  The  Apostle 
exhorts  his  hearers  to  repentance  and  conversion,  "  that  their 
sins  may  be  blotted  out ;  that  so  times  of  refreshing  may 
come  from  the  face  of  the  Lord,  and  He  may  send  Jesus 
Christ,  whom  the  heavens  must  receive"  &c.  The  language 

*  The  reading  of  the  Hebrew  in  Psalm  xvi.  10  is  debated.  On  the 
whole,  the  evidence  seems  to  me  to  favor  the  Received  Text :  Thy  holy  one. 
But  in  the  matured  and  final  judgment  of  Dr.  Davidson,  "  The  proper 
reading  is  holy  ones  or  saints  ;  not  the  singular,  Thy  holy  one  ;  showing  that 
it  refers  to  the  pious  generally.  Suffering  His  pious  ones  not  to  see  the  grave 
is  to  deliver  them  from  the  peril  of  death"  (Introduction  to  Old  Testament,  vol. 
ii.  p.  279).  This  decision  is  re-stated  inan  Article  on  English  Versions 
of  the  Bible  (Theological  Review,  April,  1866).  "Thine  holy  one  is  not  the 
textual  but  the  marginal  reading.  The  former  is,  Thy  holy  or  pious  ones, 
which  we  know  to  be  the  reading  of  the  Masorah,  and  the  true  one."  The 
Septuagint  has  the  singular.  Whether  the  Hebrew  term,  translated  by 
the  Septuagint  corruption,  is  rightly  translated,  is  very  doubtful,  and 
reference  to  the  Lexicons  shows  that  Dr.  Davidson  has  strong  reasons 
for  affirming,  "The  word  does  not  mean  corruj)tion,  but  the  grave ;  and 
therefore  the  rendering  in  Acts  ii.27  is  incorrect."  Mr.  J.  J.  S.  Perowne 
translates,  to  see  the  pit,  conceding  that  the  grace  is  indicated. 


170  CHRIST'S  GODHEAD  NOT  THE  DOCTRINE 

of  Moses  is  then  applied  to  Christ :  "  A  prophet  shall  the 
Lord  your  God  raise  up  unto  you  from  among  your  brethren, 
as  He  raised  up  me,"  &c. ;  and,  after  a  general  reference  to 
the  Old  Testament  prophecies,  the  discourse  concludes  with 
the  statement,  "  Unto  you  first,  God  having  raised  up  His 
servant  (naig),  sent  Him  to  bless  you  in  the  turning  away 
every  one  of  you  from  your  iniquities."  There  is  here  no 
glimmer  of  Deity  veiled  by  Manhood. 

In  the  verse  just  quoted,  and  also  in  Acts  iii.  13,  iv.  27, 
30,  servant  is  the  correct  rendering,  and  should  be  substi 
tuted  for  son,  and  child,  in  the  English  Version.  When 
applied  to  David,  Acts  iv.  25,  the  word  is  rightly  rendered, 
and  in  Matt.  xii.  18  our  translators  have  given  the  true  sense. 
The  point  is  not  a  disputed  one.  Archbishop  Trench,  and 
other  most  orthodox  scholars,  candidly  admit  the  Authorized 
Version  is  wrong  in  not  translating  naig  Qsov  servant  of 
God,  "  whenever  in  the  New  Testament  it  is  used  of 
Christ." 

Acts  x.  36  does  not  assert  Jesus  Christ  to  be  "  Lord  of  all 
things,"  but  far  more  probably  Lord  or  Master  of  all  persons, 
both  Jews  and  Gentiles ;  and  the  title  stands  in  a  passage 
referring  to  "  the  word  which  God  sent  unto  the  children  of 
Israel,  preaching  good  tidings  through  Jesus  Christ."  God 
is  also  said  "to  have  anointed  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with 
power  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  who  went  about  doing  good,  and 
healing  all  who  were  oppressed  by  the  devil,  because  God 
was  with  Him.  When  the  Jews  had  slain  Him,  God  raised 
Him  up  on  the  third  day,  and  He  commanded  His  Apostles 
to  preach  that  He  has  been  appointed  by  God  Judge  of 
quick  and  dead."  If  words  and  apparent  connection  of 
thought  can  indicate  the  absence  of  a  particular  idea,  we 
may  be  sure  the  idea  of  Christ's  Godhead  was  not  in  the 
Apostle's  mind  when  he  called  Christ  Lord  of  all. 

In  adducing  Acts  ii.  33,  Mr.  Liddon  really  mutilates  a  text 
by  omitting  the  part  which  does  not  fit  his  purpose.  To  say, 
"  it  is  Christ  Who  from  His  heavenly  throne  has  poured  out 
upon  the  earth  the  gifts  of  Pentecost,"  may  suggest  Christ 


TAUGHT   BY   ST.    PETER.  171 

is  God,  but  St.  Peter's  recorded  language  suggests  nothing 
of  the  kind.  "  This  Jesus  hath  God  raised  up,  whereof  we 
all  are  witnesses  ;  therefore,  being  exalted  by  the  right  hand 
of  God,  and  having  received  of  the  Father  the  promise  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  He  hath  shed  forth  this  which  ye  see  and 
hear."  What  pretenc^  do  these  words  afford  for  discerning 
an  implication  that  Christ  is  God  ?  He  is  exalted  by  God's 
right  hand,  and  receives  from  God  the  gift  (see  also  i.  4) 
which  He  is  said  to  have  poured  forth  on  His  first  disciples. 
Whatever  may  be  the  office  of  Christ  in  the  distribution  of 
spiritual  gifts  to  His  Church,  St.  Peter  saw  in  God  the  pri 
mary  and  ultimate  Giver  of  the  Holy  Ghost  (Acts  viii.  20 ; 
xi.  17). 

The  manner  in  which  Mr.  Liddon  expatiates  on  the  Name 
of  Christ  is  another  instance  of  stilted  exposition  and 
neglected  context.  "The  nature  and  office  unveiled"  by 
the  name,  Jesus  Christ  the  Nazarite,  are  assuredly  not  the 
nature  and  office  of  absolute  Deity ;  and  the  whole  account 
(iii.  6-16)  abundantly  evinces  that  the  wonder-working 
potency  associated  with  the  Name  of  Christ  was  not  the  in 
trinsic  might  of  Christ's  actual  Godhead,  but  a  potency 
imparted  by  the  God  Who  had  raised  and  glorified  His  ser 
vant  Jesus.  The  miracles  wrought  by  the  hands  of  the 
Apostles,  whether  coupled  with  the  employment  of  Christ's 
name  or  not,  were  wrought  by  God  (xix.  11),  and  the  infer 
ence  to  which*  Mr.  Liddon  invites  unwary  and  prepossessed 
readers  is  dissipated  by  the  recorded  Apostolic  prayer  en 
treating  God  to  "  stretch  forth  His  hand  for  healing,  and  for 
the  doing  of  signs  and  wonders,  through  the  Name  of  His 
holy  servant  Jesus"  (iv.  30). 

When  Mr.  Liddon  says:  "As  a  refuge  for  sinners  the 
Name  of  Jesus  stands  alone,"  &c.,  he  manifestly  endeavors 
to  put  upon  St.  Peter's  language  an  extreme  significance, 
regardless  alike  of  the  textual  connection  of  the  wrords  to 
which  he  appeals,  and  of  that  "proportion  of  the  faith" 
which  Scripture  exhibits.  The  noun  salvation  and  the  verb 
to  save  are  frequently  used  in  the  New  Testament  of  safety 


172  CHRISTOLOGY    OP   THE 

and  deliverance  from  temporal  and  bodily  evils,  as  danger, 
infirmity,  sickness,  death;  and  this  primary  and  natural 
meaning  the  context  would  lead  us  to  affix  in  Acts  iv.  12. 
The  English  Version  darkens  the  sense  by  translating  the 
same  verb  differently  in  the  9th  and  12th  verses.  To  repre 
sent  the  original  accurately,  one  expression,  either  made 
whole,  or  saved,  should  have  been  employed  in  both  cases. 
If  in  the  9th  verse  we  render,  by  what  means  he  is  saved,  we 
are  guided  to  the  sense  of  saved  in  the  12th  verse,  and  per 
ceive  it  to  refer  primarily,  if  not  exclusively,  to  physical 
soundness.  Any  other  or  higher  sense  is  secondary,  and  is 
not  the  more  probable  and  natural  meaning.  Mr.  Licldon's 
argument  proceeds  upon  an  assumption  which  many  eminent 
and  orthodox  commentators  have  seen  to  be  untenable. 

But  granting  that  St.  Peter  in  almost  consecutive  sen 
tences  used  the  same  verb  in  different  senses,  and  passed 
from  the  lower  to  the  higher  and  more  comprehensive  im 
port,  what  ground  is  there  for  the  momentous  inferential 
interpretation  which  Mr.  Liddon  imposes  ?  Where,  in  the 
New  Testament,  is  Jesus  set  before  us  as  the  ultimate  Source 
of  our  safety,  and  the  highest  Object  of  our  faith  and  wor 
ship  ?  Invariably  God  is  above  and  beyond  Him,  and  He  is 
depicted  as  being  only  ministerially,  instrumentally,  and,  in 
virtue  of  the  Almighty  Father's  gifts  and  appointment,  the 
Captain  of  our  salvation.  The  fact  is  an  eminently  plain 
one,  and  some  of  the  ample  evidence  which  illustrates  it  has 
been  already  quoted  in  the  course  of  this  examination.  Jesus 
Christ  is  not  "  Himself  the  sum  and  substance  of  His  relig 
ion  "  in  any  acceptation  which  interferes  with  the  supreme 
devotion  of  heart  and  life  to  the  service  of  our  Heavenly 
Father.  If  reason  and  common  sense  are  not  banished  from 
the  office  of  expounding  the  Sacred  Writings,  God  is  "  the 
sum  and  substance  of  Christ's  religion,"  in  a  loftier,  deeper, 
and  broader  sense  than  Christ  himself  is.  Repentance,  faith, 
hope,  love,  obedience,  prayer,  and  thanksgiving  are,  in  their 
highest  forms  and  aspects,  directed  towards  God.  St.  Peter 
gave  his  view  of  the  subject  in  few  words,  when  he  described 


FIRST   EPISTLE   OF   ST.    PETER.  173 

Christians  as  those  who,  through  Christ,  believe  on  God  Who 
raised  Him  from  the  dead,  and  gave  Him  glory;  that  their 
faith  and  hope  might  be  toward  God  (1  Pet.  i.  21)  ;  and 
again,  when  he  taught  that  Christians,  as  a  holy  priesthood, 
offer  up  spiritual  sacrifices,  acceptable  to  God,  through  Jesus 
Christ  (ii.  5). 

It  seems  a  disingenuous  and  unworthy  proceeding  to  infuse 
into  one  text  of  dubious  wording  a  meaning  which  can  draw 
no  support  either  from  the  immediate  context,  or  from  other 
portions  of  Scripture.  The  words  from  which  Mr.  Liddon 
deduces  so  largely  — "  neither  is  there  salvation  in  any 
other ;  for  there  is  no  other  Name  under  Heaven  given 
among  men,  whereby  we  must  be  saved "  —  do  not,  when 
spiritually  understood,  exclude  the  Name  and  working  of  our 
Father  in  Heaven ;  they  do  not  elevate  Christ  to  an  equality 
with  God,  but  relate  to  God's  grand  gift  to  men,  in  Christ, 
and  are,  if  reasonably  interpreted,  in  perfect  agreement  with 
St.  Paul's  doctrine  —  "  There  is  One  God,  and  one  Mediator 
between  God  and  men,  a  man,  Christ  Jesus,  who  gave  Him 
self  a  ransom  for  all "  (1  Tim.  ii.  5). 

The  Epistles  of  St.  Peter  are  pronounced  by  Mr.  Liddon 
to  "  exhibit  Christian  doctrine  in  its  fulness,  but  incidentally 
to  spiritual  objects,  and  without  the  methodical  completeness 
of  an  oral  instruction.  Christian  doctrine  is  not  propounded 
as  a  new  announcement ;  the  writer  takes  it  for  granted  as 
furnishing  a  series  of  motives,  the  force  of  which  would  be 
admitted  by  those  wrho  had  already  recognized  the  true 
majesty  and  proportions  of  the  faith." 

Now,  here,  the  real  status  of  ecclesiastical  tradition  and 
authority  with  reference  to  the  dogmas  of  Orthodoxy  is 
hinted  at,  though  not  adequately  acknowledged.  Mr.  Lid 
don  does  not  boldly  relieve  himself  from  the  fatal  obligation 
of  proving  that  the  doctrine  he  advocates  is  consistent  with 
a  reasonable  interpretation  of  the  Apostle's  language,  and  he 
is  constrained,  after  the  usual  fashion,  to  fabricate  a  sem 
blance  of  reasoning,  by  inflating  texts  and  extorting  in 
ferences. 


174  CHRISTOLOGY    OF   THE 

From  the  expression  the  Spirit  of  Christ  in  them  (1  Pet. 
i.  11)  we  have  the  large  induction :  "  The  prophets  of  the 
Old  Testament  were  Christ's  own  servants,  His  heralds, 
His  organs.  He  Who  is  the  Subject  of  the  Gospel  story,  and 
the  living  Ruler  of  the  Church,  had  also,  by  His  Spirit,  been 
Master  and  Teacher  of  the  prophets.  Under  His  guidance 
it  was  that  they  foretold  His  sufferings.  It  was  the  Spirit  of 
Christ  Who  was  in  the  prophets,  testifying  beforehand  the 
sufferings  of  Christ  and  the  glories  that  would  follow " 
(p.  295).  This  exposition  may  doubtless  claim  the  approval 
of  a  host  of  Orthodox  commentators,  whose  theology  is  so 
much  a  theology  of  inference  from  isolated  and  ambiguous 
phrases ;  but,  far  more  probably,  the  Spirit  of  Christ  here 
means  the  prophetic  spirit  anticipating  Christ,  the  Spirit  of 
God,  pointing  to  Christ  and  Christ's  religion.  Before  any  other 
explanation  can  be  rationally  accepted,  proof  is  needed  that 
Christ  was,  by  the  instrumentality  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the 
Inspirer  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  very  name,  Christ,  or 
Anointed,  by  which  our  Lord  is  designated,  seems  to  connote 
the  action  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  Him,  and  is,  so  far,  dis 
cordant  with  the  idea  St.  Peter  was  thinking  of  His  pre- 
incarnate  condition,  or  designed  to  inculcate  that  He  spoke 
by  the  Holy  Ghost  through  the  prophets.  The  Scriptural 
point  of  view  respecting  prophetic  inspiration  is  indubitably 
that  of  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews :  "  God,  Who 
spoke  in  time  past  to  the  Fathers  in  (or  by)  the  prophets,  hath, 
at  the  last  of  these  days,  spoken  unto  us  in  (or  by)  a  Son." 

Mr.  Liddon  says :  "  Here,  XQIGTOV  (of  Christ)  is  clearly  a 
genitive  of  the  subject."  The  clearness  is  limited  to  his  own 
assertion.  On  the  primary  import  of  the  Greek  genitive,  a 
large  diversity  of  significations  is  engrafted,  and  in  the  New 
Testament  the  objective  genitive  is,  at  the  least,  as  frequent 
as  the  subjective.  The  Spirit  of  Christ,  in  the  few  instances 
where  it  or  some  convertible  phrase  is  used,  neither  neces 
sarily  nor  probably  denotes  the  Spirit  imparted  by,  and  issu 
ing  from,  Christ.  The  Spirit  of  His  Son  (Gal.  iv.  6),  which 
God  sends  forth  into  Christian  hearts,  is  equivalent  to  the 


FIRST   EPISTLE   OF    ST.    PETER.  175 

effect  of  that  influence  which  "forms  Christ  in  us"  (iv.  19), 
"conforms  us  to  His  image"  (Rom.  viii.  29),  and  through 
which  "  Christ  dwells  in  our  hearts  by  faith  "  (Eph.  iii.  17). 
In  a  word,  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  without  which  no  man  can 
truly  belong  to  Christ,  is  Christ's  temper  and  disposition  of 
mind,  and  results  from  "  the  indwelling  presence  of  the  Spirit 
of  Him  who  raised  Jesus  from  the  dead  "  (Rom.  viii.  9-11). 
It  is  the  product  of  "  the  law  of  the  Spirit  of  Life  "  in  those 
who  are  in  Christ  Jesus  (verses  1  and  2). 

If,  in  Phil.  i.  19,  the  genitive  were  undoubtedly  subjective 
in  the  words,  the  /Spirit  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  text  would  do 
no  more  than  point  to  Christ  as  the  Head  of  the  Church, 
exercising  functions  and  dispensing  gifts  bestowed  upon  Him 
by  the  Father. 

In  2  Cor.  iii.  17,  18,  the  reference  is  manifestly  to  the 
underlying  spiritual  meaning  of  the  Old  Testament,  as 
opposed  to  the  letter ;  and  the  expressions,  the  Spirit  of  the 
Lord,  and  the  Lord  is  the  Spirit,  have  no  bearing  on  the 
question  whether  the  Holy  Ghost  is  ever  said  to  be  sub 
jectively  Christ's,  in  a  manner  which  would  imply  Christ's 
Godhead. 

According  to  Mr.  Liddon,  1  Pet.  i.  7,  8,  testifies  "  it  is  the 
Person  of  Jesus  in  Whom  the  spiritual  life  of  His  Church 
centres ; "  yet  the  previous  verses  (3-5)  leave  no  room  for 
doubt  that  the  Church's  spiritual  life  centres  more  truly  and 
profoundly  in  Him  wTho  stands  related  to  Christ  as  God  and 
Father,  and  by  Whose  power  Christians  are  kept  through 
faith  unto  salvation  :  "  Blessed  be  the  God  and  Father  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  Who,  according  to  His  great  mercy,  hath 
begotten  us  again  unto  a  lively  hope,  by  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus  Christ  from  the  dead,"  &c. 

The  minds  of  the  first  Christian  converts  must  have  been 
very  thoroughly  imbued  with  the  dogma  of  our  Lord's 
Deity,  before  they  could  have  seen  in  the  words,  which 
things  angels  desire  to  look  into  (1  Pet.  i.  12),  the  pregnant 
significance  Mr.  Liddon  detects. 

"  If  the  Christ  of  St.  Peter  had  been  the  Christ,  we  will 


176  DOES    ST.    PETER   DESIGNATE 

not  say  of  a  Strauss,  or  of  a  Renan,  but  the  Christ  of  a 
Socinus,  nay,  the  Christ  of  an  Arius,  it  is  not  easy  to  under 
stand  what  should  have  moved  the  Angels  with  that  strong 
desire  to  bend  from  their  thrones  above,  that  they  might 
gaze  with  unsuccessful  intentness  at  the  humiliations  of  a 
created  being,  their  peer  or  their  inferior  in  the  scale  of 
creation.  Surely  the  Angels  must  be  longing  to  unveil  a 
transcendent  mystery,  or  a  series  ot  mysteries,  such  as  are 
in  fact  the  mystery  of  the  Divine  Incarnation  and  the 
consequences  which  depend  on  it  in  the  kingdom  of  grace. 
St.  Peter's  words  are  sober  and  truthful,  if  read  by  the  light 
of  faith  in  an  Incarnate  God ;  divorced  from  such  a  faith, 
they  are  fanciful,  inflated,  exaggerated  "  (p.  296). 

Since  the  "  things "  referred  to  are  said  to  have  been 
announced  by  the  first  heralds  of  the  Gospel,  we  may 
gather  from  the  "  unsuccessful  intentness "  of  the  angelic 
gaze,  that  angels  in  heaven  have  a  feebler  insight  into 
Divine  mysteries  than  saints  upon  earth.  That  St.  Peter 
believed  the  work  of  man's  redemption  and  spiritual  ad 
vancement  to  merit  the  attentive  observation,  and  engage 
the  deep  interest  and  active  ministry  of  angels,  will  hardly 
be  denied,  and  his  faith  quite  explains  his  language.  The 
fancifulness,  inflation,  and  exaggeration  are  the  illusions 
of  his  modern  expositor. 

From  the  Bampton  Lecturer's  point  of  view,  no  aspect  of 
Christ's  work  can  be  mentioned  without  some  implication  of 
His  perfect  Divinity.  The  exhibition  of  His  suffering  Man 
hood  implies  His  Godhead.  After  noticing  some  passages  in 
which  "  St.  Peter  lays  especial  stress  both  on  the  moral  signifi 
cance  and  on  the  atoning  power  of  the  Death  of  Jesus  Christ," 
Mr.  Liddon  argues,  "  Certainly  this  earnest  recognition  of 
Christ's  true  Humanity  as  the  seat  of  His  sufferings  is  a  most 
essential  feature  of  the  Apostle's  doctrine  ;  but  what  is  it 
that  gives  to  Christ's  Human  acts  and  sufferings  such  preter 
human  value  ?  Is  it  not  that  the  truth  of  Christ's  Divine 
Personality  underlies  this  entire  description  of  His  redemp 
tive  work,  rescuing  it  from  the  exaggeration  and  turgidity 


CHRIST   "  THE   WORD    OF   GOD  "  ?  177 

with  which  it   would   be  fairly  chargeable  if  Christ  were 
merely  human  or  less  than  God?"  (p.  298.) 

The  reprehensible  neglect  of  context  which  mars  Mr.  Lid- 
don's  exegesis,  and  discredits  the  theology  he  defends,  so  far 
as  that  theology  is  made  to  lean  upon  Scripture,  has  led  him 
into  the  error  of  imagining  the  logos  or  word  of  the  Living 
and  Enduring  God  (1  Pet.  i.  23)  to  be  the  Person  of  Christ. 
But  logos  is  often  used  for  the  spoken  or  written  Word,  — 
the  message  of  God,  —  and  there  is  every  reason  to  conclude 
that  in  the  phraseology  of  St.  Peter  it  is  synonymous  with 
the  otjiAa  or  "  icord  of  the  Lord  "  mentioned  in  the  quotation 
from  Isaiah  in  the  immediately  consecutive  verses,  —  the 
Word  which  has  been  preached  in  the  Gospel.  In  the  ex 
pression  translated  milk  of  the  word  (ii.  2),  an  adjective 
derived  from  logos  is  used,  and  the  term  logos  occurs  in  ii.  8, 
where  the  better  rendering  is,  who  stumble,  obeying  not  the 
word;  and  again,  in  iii.  1,  if  any  obey  not  the  word,  they 
may  without  a  word,  &c. 

In  conjecturing  the  Petrine  personal  Christ  to  be  the 
Logos,  Mr.  Liddon  finds  an  explanation  of  the  subjection  of 
angels  and  authorities  unto  Him,  and  remarks :  "  He  is  not 
said  to  have  been  taken  up  into  heaven,  but  to  have  gone  up 
thither,  as  though  by  His  Own  deed  and  will."  The  Apos 
tolic  statement  is  :  "  Baptism  doth  now  save  us  (not  the 
putting  away  filth  from  the  flesh,  but  the  answer  of  a  good 
conscience  towards  God)  through  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ,  who  is  on  the  right  hand  of  God,  having  gone  into 
heaven  ;  angels  and  authorities  and  powers  being  subjected 
unto  Him"  (iii.  21,  22).  A  fact  is  here  stated  simply,  with 
out  allusion  to  the  mode  of  its  accomplishment.  Does  Mr. 
Liddon  wish,  by  taking  advantage  of  open  verbal  construc 
tion,  to  bring  this  statement  into  conflict  with  St.  Peter's 
constant  and  explicit  teaching,  "God  raised  Jesus  from  the 
dead  and  exalted  Him  "  ? 

And,  as  to  the  subjection  of  angels,  &c.,  on  the  supposition 
that  Christ  is  truly  God,  it  is  unmeaning  to  say  they  have 
been,  or  are,  made  subject  unto  Him,  such  language  being 

12 


178  CHRISTOLOGY   OF   THE 

suitable  only  to  the  position  of  one  whom  Cod  has  exalted, 
not  to  the  everlasting  indefeasible  supremacy  of  God  Him 
self. 

The  doxology  (1  Pet.  iv.  11)  is  not  directed  to  Jesus  Christ, 
but  to  "  the  God  Who  is  in  all  things  to  be  glorified  through 
Jesus  Christ."  The  unscrupulous  eagerness  with  which  Mr. 
Liddon,  in  the  face  of  probability,  appropriates  ambiguous 
language,  is  the  reverse  of  convincing. 

Whether  the  Second  Epistle,  traditionally  inscribed  with 
St.  Peter's  name,  is  really  an  Apostolic  composition,  is  very 
problematical ;  but  Mr.  Liddon  assumes  its  genuineness,  and 
works  up  fragments  of  it  into  his  pleadings.  "  St.  Peter's 
second  Epistle,  like  his  first,  begins  and  ends  with  Jesus.  Its 
main  positive  theme  is  the  importance  of  the  higher  practical 
knowledge  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  (i.  2,  3,  8 ; 
ii.  20;  iii.  18).  .  .  .  The  prominence  given  to  the  Person  of 
Christ,  in  this  doctrine  of  a  knowledge  of  which  His  Person 
is  the  Object,  leads  up  to  the  truth  of  His  real  Divinity.  If 
Jesus,  thus  known  and  loved,  were  not  accounted  God, 
then  we  must  say  that  God  is  in  this  Epistle  thrown  utterly 
into  the  background,  and  that  His  human  messenger  has 
taken  His  place."  There  is,  for  the  minds  of  candid  and 
thoughtful  readers,  no  sort  of  hint  anywhere  in  the  Epistle, 
that  the  writer  accounted  the  Person  of  Christ  to  be  God,  or 
held  the  subsequently  promulgated  paradox  of  Plurality  in 
Unity,  and  Unity  in  Plurality. 

The  uncertain  meaning  of  the  words  (2  Pet.  i.  1)  which 
Mr.  Liddon  renders  Our  God  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  has 
been  already  noticed.  The  Greek  is  susceptible  of  his  ver 
sion,  but  the  clearly  separate  individualities  of  G-od,  and 
Jesus  our  Lord,  in  the  next  verse,  seem  quite  decisively  to 
prescribe  the  sense  of  our  God  and  of  our  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ.  The  Codex  Sinaiticus  *  reads  of  our  Lord  and 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  which  is  perhaps  the  original  Text, 

*  I  depend  on  Mr.  F.  H.  Scrivener's  most  useful  little  volume,  "  A 
Full  Collation  of  the  Codex  Sinaiticus  with  the  Received  Text  of  the 
New  Testament"  [Bell  and  Daldy]. 


SECOND  EPISTLE  OF  ST.  PETER.          179 

and  is  certainly  a  description  so  often  repeated,  that  its 
employment  is  a  characteristic  of  the  Epistle  (i.  11;  ii.  20  ; 
iii.2,18). 

In  his  anxiety  to  show  that  "  Christ's  power  is  spoken  of 
as  Divine,"  Mr.  Liddon  altogether  misapprehends  the  purport 
of  expressions  in  i.  3.  The  pronoun  His '  there  refers  to 
God,  Whose  "  Divine  power  is  said  to  have  given  unto  us  all 
things  that  belong  to  life  and  godliness,  through  the  knowl 
edge  of  Him  (i.e.,  Jesus  Christ)  who  hath  called  us  by  His 
own  glory  and  excellence."  An  exhortation  is  added,  to  the 
end  Christians  may  not  be  "  idle  nor  unfruitful  as  regards  the 
knowledge  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ"  (ver.  8).  Escape  from 
the  pollutions  of  the  world  is  joined  with  the  knowledge  of 
the  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  (ii.  20)  ;  and  the  Epistle 
closes  with  an  exhortation  to  grow  in  grace  and  knowledge 
of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ.  The  balance  of 
probability,  therefore,  strongly  inclines  to  the  opinion,  that 
in  the  expression,  the  knowledge  of  Him  who  hath  called  us, 
&c.  (i.  3),  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  referred  to,  and  not,  as 
Mr.  Liddon  conceives,  "  The  Eternal  Father." 

The  following  extract  consists  mainly  of  assumptions  and 
gratuitous  affirmation :  — 

"  Christ's  power  is  spoken  of  as  Divine  ;  and  through  the 
precious  things  promised  by  Him  to  His  Church  (must  we 
not  here  specially  understand  the  Sacraments  ?)  Christians 
are  made  partakers  of  the  Xature  of  God  (i.  3,  4).  To  Christ, 
in  His  exalted  majesty,  a  tribute  of  glory  is  due,  both  now 
and  to  the  day  of  eternity  (iii.  18).  Throughout  this  Epistle 
Jesus  Christ  is  constantly  named  where  we  should  expect  to 
find  the  Name  of  God.  The  Apostle  does  not  merely  pro 
claim  the  Divinity  of  Jesus  in  formal  terms  ;  he  everywhere 
feels  and  implies  it."  In  i.  4,  very  great  and  precious  prom 
ises  are  mentioned,  and  the  reasonable  evidence  these 
promises  are  the  Sacraments  is  on  a  par  with  the  evidence, 
"  Jesus  Christ  is,  throughout  the  Epistle,  constantly  named 
where  we  should  expect  to  find  the  Xame  of  God."  The 
mental  condition  to  which  one  of  these  conclusions  is  prob 
able  is,  no  doubt,  profoundly  receptive  of  the  other. 


180  CHRIST'S  PERSONAL  RANK, 

The  point  is  unimportant,  but  there  is  room  for  great 
doubt  whether  the  tribute  of  glory  at  the  end  of  the  Epistle 
is  to  the  day  of  eternity.  The  exact  phrase  used  in  the 
original  is  without  articles,  does  not  occur  elsewhere  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  is  a  difficult  one  to  translate  literally, 
but  diwv  signifies  a  period  of  time  of  undefined  duration,  an 
age,  and  not  eternity,  and  the  more  probable  sense  is  "  to 
the  day  of  the  age  ;  "  i.e.,  until  the  beginning  or  the  ending 
of  whatever  era  the  age  may  be.  The  doxologies  (1  Pet.  iv. 
11;  v.  11)  both  have  dicov  in  the  plural,  and  in  the  former 
instance,  certainly,  reduplicated  (ages  of  ages,  or  ages  beyond 
ages).  To  take  for  granted  that  the  term  simply,  and  in  the 
singular,  means  eternity,  is  to  presume  on  the  reader's  igno 
rance  or  carelessness. 

The  proclamation  of  Christ's  Deity  in  "formal  terms"  is 
utterly  wanting  in  St.  Peter's  Epistles,  and  a  diffused  feeling 
and  implication  of  the  dogma  can  be  detected  by  those  alone 
who  have  learned  through  evidence,  perfectly  apart  from  the 
Apostle's  language,  what  convictions  must  have  filled  his 
mind.  Whether  he  had  departed  from  the  standing  ground 
of  Hebrew  Monotheism,  or  was  inspired  to  allot  to  Christ  a 
personal  existence  within  the  Eternal  Uncreated  Essence, 
may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  he  never  once  calls  Christ 
God,  but  distinguishes  between  Him  and  God  in  a  manner 
which  not  merely  reserves,  but  suppresses  the  truth,  if  Christ 
be  really  God. 

The  Eternal  One  is  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  (1  Pet.  i.  3) ;  to  Him  prayer  is  to  be  directed  (i.  17)  ; 
and  a  principal  feature  of  the  faith  attained  through  Christ 
is  to  believe  that  God  raised  Christ  from  the  dead,  and  gave 
Him  glory  (i.  21).  Any  ability  we  possess  is  to  be  esteemed 
and  employed  as  God's  gift,  so  that  in  all  things  He  may  be 
glorified  through  Jesus  Christ  (iv.  11).  They  who  are  called 
to  suffer  according  to  God's  will  are  to  commit  their  souls 
to  Him  as  to  a  faithful  Creator  (iv.  19) ;  all  are  to  humble 
themselves  under  His  mighty  hand,  that  He  may  in  due  time 
exalt  them;  casting  all  their  care  upon  Him  because -He 


ACCORDING    TO    ST.    PETER.  181 

careth  for  them  (v.  6,  7)  ;  and  the  Apostle's  petition  for  his 
afflicted  brethren  was,  that,  "  after  they  had  suffered  awhile, 
the  God  of  all  grace,  who  had  called  them  unto  His  eternal 
glory  in  Christ,  would  Himself  perfect,  stablish,  and  strengthen 
them"  (v.  10).  Apart  from  express  revelation,  the  natural 
conclusion  of  the  first  Christians  would  have  been  that  the 
Being  who  was  known  on  earth  as  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was 
less  than  God,  and,  with  such  a  conclusion,  St.  Peter's  teach 
ing,  whether  in  the  Missionary  Sermons  or  the  Epistles,  con 
tains  not  a  word  at  variance.  The  latent  significance,  the 
subtle  implications,  the  diffused  underlying  conviction  of 
Christ's  Veritable  Deity,  may  be  descried  by  minds  ecclesi 
astically  illuminated,  but  are  totally  shrouded  from  merely 
rational  intelligence. 

In  commenting  on  the  Epistle  which  bears  the  name  of  St. 
Jude,  Mr.  Liddon  takes  for  granted  Christ  is  called  "  our 
only  Sovereign  and  Lord  Jesus  Christ"  (ver.  4).  But  the 
translation  is  very  questionable.  Winer  pronounces  against 
the  opinion  that  grammatical  construction  confines  the  de 
scription  to  one  Person,  and  considers  two  different  Subjects 
may  be  referred  to,  since  the  word  Lord,  being  made  definite 
by  the  pronoun  our,  does  not  require  the  article.  Conceding, 
as  we  must,  the  name  God  in  the  Received  Text  to  be  an 
interpolation,  the  probability  still  is,  two  Persons,  God  and 
Jesus  Christ,  are  indicated :  the  only  Sovereign  and  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  We  may  justly  ask  for  better  warrant  than 
ambiguous  wording,  before  we  conclude  that  Christ  is  called 
our  only  Sovereign  and  Lord.  From  the  term  rendered 
Sovereign  (which,  though  sometimes  applied  to  God,  may 
mean  no  more  than  Ruler,  Master),  no  inference  can  be 
drawn,  but  the  adjective  only  appears  to  restrict  the  title 
to  the  One  God  and  Father.  In  verses  20  and  21,  Mr. 
Liddon  discerns  these  intimations :  "  The  life  of  Christians 
is  fashioned  in  devotion  to  the  Blessed  Trinity.  It  is  a 
life  of  prayer ;  their  souls  live  in  the  Holy  Spirit  as  in  an 
atmosphere.  It  is  a  life  of  persevering  love,  whereof  the 
Almighty  Father  is  the  Object.  It  is  a  life  of  expectation  ; 


182  CHRISTOLOGY   OF   JUDE'S   EPISTLE. 

they  look  forward  to  the  indulgent  mercy  which  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  will  show  them  at  His  coming.  Christ  is  the 
Being  to  Whom  they  look  for  mercy ;  and  the  issue  of  His 
compassion  is  everlasting  life.  Could  any  merely  human 
Christ  have  had  this  place  in  the  heart  and  faith  of  Christians, 
or  on  the  judgment-seat  of  God?" 

The  excessive  strain  here  put  upon  words  is  too  palpable 
to  need  remark,  and  the  question  at  issue  is  not  whether  the 
writer  of  the  Epistle  believed  in  a  merely  human  Christ. 
Mere  Humanity  and  absolute  Godhead  are  not  a  pair  of 
alternatives,  one  of  which  must  be  chosen.  There  is  between 
Humanity  and  God  an  unknown  range  of  superhuman  Ex 
istence  ;  and  all  the  peculiar  endowments  of  office,  power, 
and  majesty  with  which  the  Almighty  has  invested  Christ, 
are,  for  genuine  Protestants,  to  be  measured  neither  by  our 
guesses,  nor  by  the  necessities  of  traditional  dogmatics,  but 
by  the  statements  of  Scripture,  so  far  as  those  statements  are 
sufficiently  plain  and  concordant  to  justify  definite  conclu 
sions. 

The  final  sentence  of  the  Epistle  is,  in  its  true  reading, 
inconsistent  with  the  notion  that  in  the  heart  and  faith  of 
the  writer  Jesus  Christ  occupied  the  place  of  God.  "  Unto 
Him  Who  is  able  to  keep  you  from  falling,  and  to  present 
you  faultless  and  joyful  in  the  presence  of  His  glory ;  unto 
the  only  God  our  Saviour,  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord, 
be  glory,  majesty,  dominion,  and  power,  both  now  and 
throughout  all  the  ages." 

There  is  a  perfectly  amazing  one-sidedness,  and  consequent 
inconclusiveness,  in  the  method  of  Mr.  Liddon's  argument. 
He  neglects  implications  directly  and  obviously  against  the 
doctrine  he  advocates,  and  argues  as  though  that  doctrine 
were  too  amply  demonstrated  to  be  seriously  questioned,  and 
might  be  assumed  as  a  standard  whereby  to  regulate  inter 
pretation.  Beneath  all  his  semblances  of  evidence,  there 
lurks  the  assumption  that  evidence  is  superfluous,  and  that, 
write  what  they  may,  the  Sacred  Writers  must  be  in  har 
mony  with  the  framers  of  the  Nicene  and  Athanasian  Creeds 


CHRIST'S  DEITY  NOT  IN  LATEST  EPISTLES.          183 

Scripture  is  indeed  illuminating,  but  only  to  the  initiated  ;  it 
is  conclusive,  but  then  it  must  be  studied  with  the  bias  of  a 
previous  invincible  conviction,  and  by  the  light  of  a  revela 
tion  external  to  itself. 

That  SS.  James,  Peter,  and  Jude  entertained  a  very  high 
conception  of  the  Person  and  offices  of  Jesus  Christ,  whom 
God  had  "  raised  from  the  dead,  and  clothed  with  glory " 
(1  Pet.  i.  21),  arid  who  had,  when  on  earth,  "received  from 
God  the  Father  honor  and  glory"  (2  Pet.  i.  17),  there  can  be 
no  doubt ;  but  they  nowhere  hint,  even  indirectly,  "  Jesus  is 
God  Incarnate."  If  they  believed  Christ  to  be  God  they 
have  strangely  repressed  their  faith,  and  have  most  ingen 
iously  withheld  both  avowal  and  intimation  of  a  doctrine 
which  Christians  in  subsequent  times  have  never  really  be 
lieved  without  frequently  and  earnestly  proclaiming.  Grant 
ing  the  competency  of  ecclesiastical  tradition,  and  the  inspired 
voice  of  a  revealing  Church,  to  make  it  a  probable,  or  even  a 
certain  conclusion,  that  these  earthly  companions  of  our  Lord 
conceived  Him  to  be  an  Essential  Form  of  Omnipotent  Self- 
existent  Deity,  still  the  fact  remains,  their  faith  does  not 
appear  in  their  Epistles.  Nothing  is  gained  by  attempts  to 
erect  the  Church's  teaching  on  false  grounds ;  on  the  contrary, 
faith  is  shaken,  honest  perception  is  blunted,  and  interpreta 
tion  is  degraded  into  a  series  of  crafty  contrivances  to  hide 
natural  meaning  and  exhibit  an  ecclesiastical  sense. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

Dissection  of  the  reasoning  by  which  Mr.  Liddon  endeavors  to  show  that 
Christ's  Deity  "is  bound  up  with  St.  Paul's  whole  mind,"  and  is 
implicitly  taught  throughout  his  Epistles.  —  In  reality  the  Bampton 
Lecturer  refuses  to  take  the  point  of  view  which  St.  Paul's  writings, 
and  other  New  Testament  Scriptures,  incessantly  present.  —  Doctrine 
of  the  Real  Presence  in  the  Holy  Eucharist.  —  Mistaken  deductions 
from  the  Epistles  to  the  Ephesians  and  Colossians.  —  Some  additional 
imaginary  implications  of  a  Christ  Divine  in  the  sense  maintained 
by  the  Lectures.  —  Adverse  testimony  of  St.  Paul  exhibited,  and  an 
appeal  made  from  the  ground  of  that  testimony  to  the  honesty,  in 
tellectual  conscientiousness,  and  common  sense  of  Orthodox  Protest 
ants.  —  Catholic  Churchmen  not  liable  to  this  appeal. 

THE  most  irreclaimably  biassed  interpretation  could  collect 
from  St.  Paul's  discourses  and  Epistles  but  few  expressions 
which  can  be  made  to  wear  the  semblance  of  either  announc 
ing  in  terms,  or  plausibly  suggesting,  that  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  is  Unproduced  Eternal  God,  in  Essential  Being  the 
same  as,  and  equal  to,  the  Almighty  Father.  The  Pauline 
texts  which  Mr.  Liddon  supposes  directly  to  assert,  or  clearly 
to  imply,  Christ's  Deity,  have  been  already  examined,  and 
shown  not  to  be  fairly  open  to  the  construction  he  assigns. 
But,  in  handling  St.  Paul's  language,  he  builds,  with  much 
pretension,  on  a  mass  of  indirect  testimony,  which,  viewed  in 
the  shadow  of  his  own  prepossessions,  seems  to  him  to  prove 
the  doctrine  of  Christ's  Deity  was  "  bound  up  with  St.  Paul's 
whole  mind;"  and  "irresistibly  to  imply  a  Christ  Who  is 
Divine."  In  attempting  to  draw  out  and  illustrate  the  mean 
ing  which  so  deeply  underlies  the  Apostle's  writings,  and  is 
so  wonderfully  absent  from  the  surface  of  his  words,  Mr.  Lid 
don  expends  pages  of  passionate  rhetoric,  the  major  part  of 
which  (regarded  as  argument,  and  not  as  mere  declamation) 
is  redeemed  from  being  absolutely  silly,  only  by  being  elo- 


CHRISTOLOGY   OF   PAUL'S   DISCOURSES.  185 

quent  and  sincere.  In  language  frequently  reiterated  in  sub 
stance,  though  varied  in  form,  the  conclusion  is  pressed  upon 
us,  that  "the  doctrine  is  inextricably  interwoven  with  the 
central  and  most  vital  teaching  of  the  Apostle ; "  and  that, 
"  taking  St.  Paul's  teaching  as  a  whole,  it  must  be  admitted 
to  centre  in  One  Who  is  at  once  and  truly  God  as  well  as 
Man"  (p.  324). 

I  shall  not  follow  minutely  every  sentence  of  rapacious 
deduction  from  materials  which  are  admitted  to  be  unpro- 
nounced,  while  they  are  held  to  be  potently  cumulative.  My 
readers  will  by  this  time  have  learned  to  know  the  method, 
and  appreciate  the  worth,  of  the  reasonings  I  am  reviewing. 
Wherever  any  prominence  is  given  to  the  offices  of  Jesus 
Christ,  and  our  relation  to  Him  as  the  God-exalted  Ruler  and 
Saviour  of  mankind,  there  Mr.  Liddon  detects  the  slightly 
veiled  presence  of  the  dogma  he  is  bent  on  finding,  and 
triumphantly  proclaims  the  inference,  "  Christ  must  be  God." 
The  antidote  to  his  very  real,  though  undesigned  sophistry, 
may,  in  most  instances,  be  discovered  in  the  immediate  con 
texts  of  the  passages  he  produces. 

What  inference,  bearing  helpfully  on  his  theme,  Mr.  Liddon 
imagines  can  be  extracted  from  that  "  Sermon  of  St.  Paul's 
from  the  steps  of  the  Areopagus,  which,  at  first  sight,  might 
seem  to  be  Theistic  rather  than  Christian,"  is  not  easily  dis 
cernible.  The  sermon,  he  reminds  us,  "  though  insisting 
chiefly  on  those  Divine  attributes  which  are  observable  in 
nature  and  Providence,  ends  with  Jesus.  .  .  .  The  certainty 
of  the  coming  judgment  has  been  attested  by  the  historical 
fact  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus ;  the  risen  Jesus  is  the  future 
Judge"  (Acts  xvii.  18-31). 

The  Apostle  preached  with  great  emphasis  and  clearness 
One  living  and  true  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  the  Creator, 
Ruler,  Sustainer,  and  Father  of  all  mankind,  and  finished  his 
discourse  by  declaring,  "  God  now  commands  all  men  every 
where  to  jepent,  because  He  has  appointed  a  day  in  which 
He  will  judge  the  world  in  righteousness  by  a  Man  whom 
He  hath  ordained ;  having  given  unto  all  men  assurance  in 


186 

raising  Him  from  the  dead."  If  this  language  be  in  perfect 
harmony  with  the  persuasion,  "Jesus  Christ  is  God,"  what 
conceivable  words  can  be  out  of  harmony  with  that  persua 
sion  ? 

The  Apostle's  address  to  the  Presbyters  on  the  strand  of 
Miletus  (Acts  xx.  18-36)  "moves  incessantly  round  the 
Person  of  Jesus.  He  protests  that  to  lead  men  to  repent 
ance  towards  God,  and  faith  towards  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
(ver.  21),  had  been  the  single  object  of  his  public  and  private 
ministrations  at  Ephesus."  How  does  this  intimate  that  in 
St.  Paul's  conception  Jesus  Christ  was  God?  The  phr:..se- 
ology  rather  excludes  the  intimation.  The  supreme  devotion 
of  heart  and  mind  are  claimed  for  God,  and  belief  is  demanded 
with  reference  to  the  office  and  work  of  the  beloved  Son  and 
Servant  whom  God  had  raised  from  the  dead,  and  made  both 
Lord  and  Christ.  The  repentance  and  faith  referred  to  are 
a  comprehensive  description  of  Christian  belief  and  conduct ; 
and,  measured  only  by  the  hints  which  his  farewell  address 
at  Miletus  supplies,  the  Apostle's  teaching  would  appear  to 
have  been  of  a  very  undogmatic  and  practical  kind. 

The  discreditable  though  possibly  unconscious  tendency 
to  strain  and  inoculate  every  turn  of  expression  is  displayed 
in  the  paraphrase  of  verse  24  in  the  same  discourse  :  "  The 
Apostle  counts  not  his  life  dear  to  himself,  if  only  he  can  com 
plete  the  mission  which  is  so  precious  to  him,  because  he  has 
received  it  from  the  Lord  Jesus."  The  recorded  words  are  : 
"  That  I  may  finish  my  course,  and  the  ministry  which  I  have 
received  from  the  Lord  Jesus,  to  bear  witness  of  the  gospel 
of  the  grace  of  God,"  —  where  the  special  preciousness  of 
the  mission  is,  certainly,  as  fairly  ascribable  to  its  subject- 
matter  as  to  its  reception  from  the  Lord  Jesus.  No  doubt  it 
was  prized  by  the  Apostle  on  both  grounds. 

In  referring  to  verse  28,  Mr.  Liddon  injudiciously  clings  to 
the  wrong  reading,  which  seems  to  affirm,  "  God  purchased 
the  Church  with  His  Own  Blood."  To  sustain  the  phrase, 
blood  of  God,  the  concurrence  of  all  ancient  MSS.  would 
scarcely  suffice,  whereas,  in  fact,  a  majority  of  the  MSS. 


CIRCUMSTANCES    OF   PAUL'S    CONVERSION.  187 

whose  antiquity  carries  weight  have  the  reading,  The  Church 
of  the  Lord,  which  He  hath  purchased  with  His  own  blood. 
Though  Mr.  Liddon  himself  adopts  the  erroneous  wording, 
he  briefly  indicates  in  a  note  the  condition  of  the  external 
evidence.  If  Church  of  God  were  undoubtedly  genuine,  we 
might  still,  I  think,  with  a  very  high  degree  of  probability, 
regard  Christ  as  an  unexpressed  nominative  to  has  pur 
chased ;  unexpressed,  because  so  very  obvious.  To  use  the 
passage  at  all  as  a  proof  text,  in  arguing  for  the  dogma  of 
our  Lord's  Divinity,  is  among  the  absurdities  which  grow  on* 
of  abundant  conviction  and  scanty  evidence. 

The  circumstances  which  accompanied,  and  immediately 
succeeded  St.  Paul's  conversion,  are  touched  in  Mr.  Liddon's 
accustomed  fashion  ;  and  fragments  of  the  narratives  in  Acts 
xxii.  and  xxvi.  are  duly  marshalled  and  manipulated  to  intro 
duce  the  query,  "  Who  can  fail  to  see  that  the  Lord,  Who,  in 
His  glorified  manhood,  thus  speaks  to  His  servant  from  the 
skies,  and  Who  is  withal  revealed  to  him  in  the  very  centre 
of  his  soul  (Gal.  i.  15,  16),  is  no  created  being,  is  neither  saint 
nor  seraph,  but  in  very  truth  the  Master  of  consciences,  the 
Monarch  Who  penetrates,  inhabits,  and  rules  the  secret  life  of 
spirits,  the  King  Who  claims  the  fealty,  and  Who  orders  the 
ways  of  men  ?  " 

The  utter  groundlessness  of  the  induction,  that  Jesus  the 
Nazarite,  the  glorified  Master  of  Christians,  who  appeared  to 
Saul  of  Tarsus  on  the  road  to  Damascus,  and  sent  him  forth 
to  preach  the  Gospel,  is,  in  Attributes  and  Essence,  Veritable 
Deity,  will  be  manifest  to  every  reader  who  calmly  peruses 
the  narratives  quoted.  The  w^ords  of  Ananias,  to  whom  also 
a  vision  of  Christ  had  been  vouchsafed,  and  of  whose  coming 
Paul  had  received  an  entranced  foresight  (Acts  ix.  10-12), 
place  the  subject  in  the  true  light,  and  show  how  baseless  is 
Mr.  Liddon's  strained  and  stilted  exposition.  "  The  God  of 
our  fathers  hath  chosen  thee  to  know  His  will,  and  to  see 
the  Just  One,  and  to  hear  a  voice  from  His  mouth,  because 
thou  shalt  be  a  witness  for  Him  unto  all  men,  of  what  thou 
hast  seen  and  heard"  (xxii.  14,  15).  The  perpetually  recur- 


188  DOES   PAUL   ANYWHERE   PROCLAIM 

ring  Scriptural  conceptions  of  God's  distinct  supremacy,  and 
our  Lord's  inferiority  and  instrumentality,  are,  surely,  more 
present  here  than  the  ideas  Mr.  Liddon  cannot  "  fail  to  see." 

In  the  appearance  of  Jesus  to  Paul,  there  was  nothing  to 
betoken  our  Lord  to  be  either  uncreated  or  super-angelic.  He 
appears  as  a  spiritual  and  glorious  Being,  clothed  with  author 
ity  and  a  mission  from  the  Most  High.  If  a  suggestion  as  to 
the  mode  of  our  Lord's  appearance  is  designed,  it  is  scarcely 
accurate  to  say,  "  He  speaks  to  His  servant  from  the  skies," 
the  truer  account  would  seem  to  be,  He  came  from  the  skies 
to  speak  to  His  servant." 

I  cannot  perceive  the  relevancy  of  the  reference  to  Gal.  i. 
15, 16  :  It  pleased  God  .  .  .  to  reveal  His  Son  in  me.  Com 
bine  that  statement  as  you  will  with  the  records  of  St.  Paul's 
conversion,  visions,  and  conduct,  how  can  the  conclusion  be 
reached,  Christ  is  the  Supreme  and  Divine  "  Master  of  con 
sciences,  the  Monarch  Who  penetrates,  inhabits,  and  rules 
the  secret  life  of  spirits,"  &c.  ? 

To  what  purpose  is  the  remark, "  St.  Paul's  popular  teach 
ing  is  emphatically  a  'preaching  of  Jesus  Christ'  (Acts  ix. 
20,  xvii.  3,  18,  xxviii.  31 ;  comp.  Acts  v.  42 ;  2  Cor.  iv.  5)  "  ? 
Doubtless  it  is  so,  but  the  fact  of  Christ's  filling  a  place  of 
peculiar  emphasis  and  prominence  is  very  far  indeed  from 
proving  Christ  to  be  God.  In  what  sense  does  the  Apostle 
preach  Christ  ?  and  on  what  doctrine  concerning  Christ  does 
he  insist  ?  Does  he  anywhere,  in  a  single  phrase  of  clear, 
unequivocal  meaning,  proclaim,  "  Christ  is  God  "  ?  Does  he 
anywhere  put  Him  on  an  equality  with  God  ?  Does  he  any 
where,  even  in  the  later  Epistles  and  the  strongest  passages, 
represent  Him  as  being  greater  than  God-appointed,  God- 
endowed,  God-exalted  ?  His  whole  Apostolic  labor  was  a 
devoted  spiritual  service  of  God,  in  the  Gospel  of  His  Son 
(Rom.  i.  9)  ;  the  faith  he  seeks  to  establish,  and  to  which  he' 
gives  the  promise  of  justification,  is  faith  in  Him  Who  raised 
up  Jesus  our  Lord  from  the  dead  (iv.  24  ;  x.  0,  10)  ;  the  peace 
he  announces  is  peace  with  God,  through  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  through  whom  we  have  access  into  the  grace  wherein 


THAT   "  CHRIST   IS   GOD  "  ?  189 

we  stand  (v.  1,  2);  the  very  core  of  the  Gospel  was,  in  his  view, 
the  overflowing  grace  of  God,  and  God's  gracious  gift  in  the 
man  Christ  Jesus,  abounding  unto  mankind  (v.  15-17)  ;  his 
thanksgivings  habitually  went  up  to  God  for  the  grace  given 
in  Christ  Jesus ;  and  his  ground  of  Christian  assurance  was 
that  faithful  is  the  God  Who  calls  us  into  the  fellowship  of 
His  Son,  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord  (1  Cor.  i.  4,  9).  The  com 
pany  of  believers  is  God's  husbandry,  and  God's  building ; 
the  true  ministers  of  the  Church,  who  lay  the  one  foundation, 
Christ  Jesus,  are  laborers  of  God  ;  and  the  climax  of  Christian 
privilege  and  security  is  expressed  in  the  formula,  Ye  are 
Christ's  and  Christ  is  God^s  (1  Cor.  iii.  9, 11,  23  ;  comp.  Eph. 
ii.  18-20).  The  Church  is  the  Body  of  Christ,  but  it  is  a  Body 
in  which  God  supremely  governs,  and  sets  the  various  mem 
bers  according  to  His  own  Avise  Will  (1  Cor.  xii.  18,  27,  28). 
The  dominion  of  Christ  is  declared  to  be  an  imparted  and 
delegated  dominion  ;  to  be  at  length  delivered  up  to  the  God 
and  Father,  to  Whom  the  Son  shall  be  Himself  subject,  that 
God  may  be  all  in  all  (xv.  24-28).  He  who  establishes  us 
with  respect  to  Christ,  and  anoints  us,  is  God  (2  Cor.  i.  21). 
Of  the  crucified  Christ,  whom  the  Apostle  gloried  in  preach 
ing,  he  could  announce  that,  though  He  was  crucified  through 
weakness,  yet  He  is  alive  through  the  power  of  God  (xiii. 
4) ;  an  announcement  in  which  language  is  strangely  used, 
if  Christ  be,  Himself,  personally  God.  When  the  Apostle 
claims  a  superhuman  origin  for  his  Apostleship,  he  sees  a 
height  yet  beyond  the  Master,  Jesus  Christ,  even  God,  the 
Father,  Who  raised  Christ  from  the  dead  (Gal.  i.  1 ;  comp. 
Eph.  i.  \) ;  and  when  he  states  most  pregnantly  the  purpose 
for  which  Christ  became  our  Redeemer,  he  tells  us  that  pur 
pose  was  in  fulfilment  of  the  Will  of  our  God  and  Father 
(Gal.  i.  4).  The  spiritual  blessings  which  Christians  receive 
in  Christ  are  ascribed  to  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ ;  to  Him  St.  Paul's  prayers  for  gifts  of  wisdom, 
enlightenment,  and  spiritual  strength  are  directed ;  and  to 
Him  the  endless  tribute  of  glory  in  the  Church,  and  in  Christ 
Jesus,  is  acknowledged  to  be  due  (Eph.  i.  3,  17,  18 ;  iii. 
14-21). 


190  DOES   PAUL   BY   IMPLICATION 

The  list  of  texts  denoting  the  Apostle's  "  emphatic  preach 
ing  of  Jesus  Christ "  not  to  have  been  a  preaching  which 
either  expressly  affirmed  or  tacitly  implied  Christ's  Deity 
might  be  easily  extended.  Turns  of  thought  and  diction  out 
of  keeping  with  faith  in  any  Godhead  but  the  Father's  meet 
us  at  every  step,  in  closest  connection  with  statements  which 
proclaim  the  dignity  and  offices  of  Christ. 

The  dogma  of  our  Lord's  Deity  being  assumed  to  be 
recognized  and  fixed  in  St.  Paul's  mind,  his  remarkable  mode 
of  inculcating  it  is  felt  to  be  a  problem  which  calls  for  some 
attempt  at  solution.  Putting,  for  the  moment,  all  evidence 
on  the  other  side  out  of  the  account,  —  if  the  Apostle's 
thought  and  teaching  moved  so  continually  round  the  Person 
of  an  absolutely  Divine  Christ,  his  rare  use  of  ambiguous 
expressions,  which  even  the  resolute  faith  and  cultivated 
ingenuity  of  centuries  have  been  able  plausibly  to  isolate 
and  enlist,  and  his  entire  abstinence  from  clear  and  definite 
avowals  of  Christ's  Deity,  become  to  the  eye  of  reason  con 
vincingly  indicative  that,  either  purposely  or  under  constraint 
of  inspiration,  he  withheld  the  tenet  which  the  Church  after 
wards  made  the  centre  of  her  dogmatic  system. 

Mr.  Liddon,  indeed,  argues :  "  Our  Lord  is  always  the 
Apostle's  theme  ;  but  the  degree  in  which  His  Divine  glory 
is  unveiled  varies  with  the  capacities  of  the  Jewish  or 
heathen  listeners  for  bearing  the  great  discovery.  The  doc 
trine  is  distributed,  if  we  may  so  speak,  in  a  like  varying 
manner  over  the  whole  text  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles.  It  lies  in 
those  greetings  (commencements  of  all  the  Epistles,  see  also 
2  Cor.  xiii.  13 ;  2  Thess.  ii.  16)  by  which  the  Apostle  associ 
ates  Jesus  Christ  with  God  the  Father,  as  being  the  source, 
no  less  than  the  channel,  of  the  highest  spiritual  blessings. 
It  is  pointedly  asserted,  when  the  Galatians  are  warned  that 
St.  Paul  is  '  an  Apostle  not  from  men,  or  by  man,  but  by 
Jesus  Christ  and  God  the  Father.'  It  is  implied  in  the  bene 
dictions  which  the  Apostle  pronounces  in  the  Name  of  Christ 
without  naming  the  name  of  God  (Rom.  xvi.  20,  24;  1  Cor. 
xvi.  23 ;  Gal.  vi.  18  ;  Phil.  iv.  23 ;  1  Thess.  v.  28).  It  under- 


TEACH  CHRIST'S  DEITY  ?  191 

lies  those  early  Apostolical  hymns,  sung,  as  it  would  seem,  in 
the  Redeemer's  honor.  ...  It  alone  can  explain  the  appli 
cation  of  passages,  which  are  used  in  the  Old  Testament  of 
the  Lord  Jehovah,  to  the  Person  of  Jesus  Christ ;  such  an 
application  would  have  been  impossible  unless  St.  Paul  had 
renounced  his  belief  in  the  authority  and  sacred  character  of 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  or  had  explicitly  recognized  the  truth 
that  Jesus  Christ  was  Jehovah  Himself  visiting  and  redeem 
ing  His  people"  (p.  327). 

A  little  examination  detects  the  unsoundness  of  this  rea 
soning.  The  benedictory  greetings  do  not  involve  the  sup 
position  ;  Jesus  Christ,  "  being  the  source  no  less  than  the 
channel  of  the  highest  spiritual  blessings,"  is  God.  Accord 
ing  to  the  teaching  of  Scripture,  He  is  not,  as  the  Almighty 
Father  is,  the  original  primary  source  of  any  spiritual  bless 
ing  whatever,  but,  in  virtue  of  the  Father's  gifts,  the  second 
ary  and  instrumental  source.  His  whole  function  between 
God  and  us  is  ministerial,  and  He  can  bestow  nothing  which 
He  has  not  Himself  first  received  from  the  One  God  and 
Father  Who  is  over  all  (Matt,  xxviii.  18;  Acts  ii.  36,  v.  31 ; 
Phil.  ii.  8-11;  Eph.  i.  20-22).  There  is  but  one  way  in 
which  the  language  of  Scripture  can  be  rationally  harmo 
nized  ;  namely,  by  starting  from  the  position  to  which  a  mul 
titude  of  texts  lead,  that  Christ  is  made  of  God  the  Channel, 
and  is  furnished  by  God  to  be  the  Dispenser,  of  gifts  of 
grace.  Hopeless  confusion  is  introduced,  and  every  dictate 
of  sound  reasonable  interpretation  suffers  violence,  when 
unexplained  association  is  dilated  into  antagonism  with  ex 
plicitly  avowed  recipiency  and  subordination.  The  exalta 
tion  and  the  endowments,  of  which  the  Canonical  penmen 
held  Christ  to  have  been  the  recipient,  fully  account  for 
every  expression  which  points  to  Him,  either  as  a  source  or 
a  channel  of  grace  and  peace,  and  at  the  same  time  leave 
uncrossed  the  numerous  statements  which  exhibit  the  unri 
valled,  unapproachable  supremacy  of  the  Father,  as  the  One 
Independent,  Self-sufficing  Fountain  of  every  good  and 
perfect  gift.  Taking  into  view  the  whole  of  the  New.  Testa- 


192 

ment  phraseology  bearing  on  tlie  point,  the  natural,  prob 
able,  and  amply  sufficient  meaning  of  the  expression  grace  or 
favor  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  the  loving  approval 
attaching  to  faithful  discipleship,  together  with  all  the  bless 
ings  of  which  the  great  High  Priest  and  Apostle  of  our 
profession  is  the  minister  to  those  who  are  heirs  of  God  and 
joint-heirs  with  Christ  (Rom.  viii.  17). 

I  am  not  inclined  to  dispute  whether,  in  the  passages  re 
ferred  to,  Christ  is  contemplated  as  a  Dispenser  and  Channel 
of  grace ;  but  an  expositor  less  ready  than  Mr.  Lid  don  is  to 
clutch  at  a  possible  meaning  of  an  ambiguous  phrase  might 
object  that,  in  the  great  majority  of  the  texts  adduced,  the 
Greek  will  bear  the  translation  from  God,  the  Father  of  us, 
and  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  /  and  that  some  proximate 
contexts  (2  Cor.  i.  3  ;  'Eph.  i.  3 ;  Col.  i.  3)  tend  to  sustain  the 
translation.  But,  without  taking  exception  to  the  generally 
received  and  more  probable  rendering,  the  immediate  con 
texts  above  mentioned,  Blessed  be  the  God  and  Father  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  do  seem  conclusively  to  shut  out  the 
idea  that,  in  associating  Christ  with  the  Father  in  benedictory 
salutations,  the  Apostle  was  impelled  by  the  underlying 
thought,  or  proceeded  on  the  tacit  assumption,  of  Christ's 
Deity.  With  regard  to  Gal.  i.  1,  one  thing  which  the  Apos 
tle  there  "  pointedly  asserts  "  is,  God  the  Father  raised  Jesus 
Christ  from  the  dead ;  but  the  words,  Who  raised  Him  from 
the  dead,  being  opposed  to  the  desired  inference,  do  not  ap 
pear  in  Mr.  Liddon's  quotation.  St.  Paul  having  pronounced 
his  Apostleship  not  to  be  from  men  as  the  commissioning 
source,  nor  through  any  man  as  an  intermediate  authority, 
it  seems  not  improbable  his  fully  expressed  meaning  would 
be,  "  but  through  Jesus  Christ,  and  (from)  God  the  Father." 

The  phrase,  the  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  is,  to  Mr. 
Liddon's  mind,  vastly  pregnant  with  acceptable  significance. 
In  his  delineation  of  "  the  implied  Christology  of  the  Epis 
tles  to  the  Corinthians,"  he  concludes  with  the  exclamation, 
"Would  St.  Paul  impart  an  Apostolical  benediction?  In  one 
Epistle  he  blesses  his  readers  in  the  Name  of  Christ  alone ; 


SIGNIFICANCE    OF    ASSOCIATED    NAMES.  193 

in  the  other  he  names  the  Three  Blessed  Persons ;  but  the 
grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  mentioned  not  only  before 
the  fdloioship  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  but  even  before  the  love  of 
God"  (I  Cor.  xvi.  23;  2  Cor.  xiii.  14).  If  such  exceedingly 
weak  pleading  was  pardonable  in  a  University  pulpit,  it 
should  not  have  been  allowed  to  appear  in  print.  Did  the 
thought  never  strike  Mr.  Liddon,  that,  presuming  the  arrange 
ment  of  the  latter  benediction  to  have  a  designed  and  special 
purpose,  the  purpose  might  have  been  to  ascend  from  more 
diffused  and  general  forms  to  a  more  concentrated  and  par 
ticular  form  of  spiritual  blessing.  The  fellowship  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  the  highest  result,  and  the  most  precious 
inward  individual  realization  of  all  that  the  favor  of  Christ 
and  the  love  of  God  can  bestow. 

When  Mr.  Liddon  caught  at  the  concluding  benediction  of 
the  first  Corinthian  Epistle,  he  should  have  observed  how, 
to  the  pious  wish  for  the  presence  of  Christ's  favor,  St.  Paul 
adds  the  words,  My  love  be  with  you  all  in  Christ  Jesus. 
Are  we  absurdly  to  infer  the  Apostle's  possession  of  super 
human  capacity  and  dignity  ?  He  might  appropriately  have 
written,  "  The  love  of  God  be  with  you  all  in  Christ  Jesus." 

But  association  of  names,  and  the  mention,  under  identical 
terms,  of  attributes  and  relations  whose  force  and  extent 
vary  with  the  persons  indicated,  are  the  poorest  arguments 
for  equality  of  rank  and  nature.  Are  the  holy  angels  put  on 
a  level  with  Christ  and  with  the  Father,  when,  in  Luke  ix. 
26,  the  glory  of  the  Son  of  Man,  and  of  the  Father,  and  of 
the  holy  angels,  is  spoken  of  in  one  and  the  same  sentence  ? 
Do  the  angels  of  God  acquire  a  Divine  dignity  by  the  asso 
ciation  in  Rev.  iii.  5  ?  (Comp.  Matt.  x.  32 ;  Luke  xii.  8  ; 
Mark  viii.  38.)  Did  the  Apostles,  presbyters,  and  brethren 
equalize  themselves  with  the  Holy  Ghost  in  authority,  when 
they  wrote  it  seemed  good  to  the  Holy  Ghost  and  to  us? 
(Acts  xv.  28.)  Did  St.  Paul  intend  to  suggest  the  parity  of 
those  he  named,  when  he  used  the  adjuration,  2  charge  thee 
before  God,  and  Christ  Jesus,  and  the  elect  angels  ?  (1  Tim. 
v.  21.)  The  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  in  describ- 

13 


194  THE    EARLY   APOSTOLIC    HYMNS. 

ing  the  gloriousness  of  the  heavenly  Jerusalem,  names  to 
gether,  "God  the  Judge  of  all ;  spirits  of  just  men  made 
perfect ;  and  Jesus,  Mediator  of  a  new  covenant "  (xii.  23, 
24) ;  but  what  sane  person  would  imagine  these  inhabitants 
of  heaven  to  be  compeers,  because  they  are  grouped  in  a 
recital  of  celestial  attractiveness  and  splendor?  The  remark 
able  fact  that  spirits  of  just  men  are  "  mentioned  even  be 
fore  "  Jesus  the  Mediator  merits  Mr.  Liddon's  thoughtful 
observation.  Again,  in  Rev.  xiv.  10,  the  revelation  imparted 
by  angelic  lips  to  St.  John  not  only  joins  the  angels  with 
the  Lamb  as  spectators  of  the  fiery  torments  of  the  wicked, 
but  also  significantly  mentions  the  presence  of  the  angels 
"  even  before  "  the  presence  of  the  Lamb.* 

The  early  Apostolical  hymns  to  which  Mr.  Liddon  refers  are 
supposed  to  be  contained  in  1  Tim.  i.  15;  iii.  16;  2  Tim.  ii. 
11-13;  Titus  iii.  4-7;  Eph.  v.  14;  and  students,  who  have 
not  yet  acquired  the  faculty  of  seeing  anywhere  and  every 
where  whatever  they  may  wish  to  see,  can  decide  for  them 
selves  what  doctrine  "underlies"  these  fragmentary  anthems. 
In  1  Tim.  iii.  16,  the  corrupted  reading,  God,  too  little  de 
fensible  even  for  Mr.  Liddon's  appropriation,  must  of  course 
be  cancelled. 

The  specimens  cited  of  "  the  application  to  the  Person  of 
Christ  of  passages  which  are  used  in  the  Old  Testament  of 
the  Lord  Jehovah,"  are  Joel  ii.  32,  in  Rom.  x.  13  ;  and  Jer. 
ix.  23,  24,  in  1  Cor.  i.  31. 

In  taking  for  granted  St.  Paul  applies  the  words  of  Joel  to 
Christ,  Mr.  Liddon  treads  in  the  steps  of  numerous  orthodox 
commentators,  who,  having  such  slender  materials  in  Scrip 
ture  for  the  concoction  of  the  Church's  dogma,  are  actuated 
by  an  unconscious  bias,  'and  build  upon  doubtful  surmises  as 
though  they  were  indubitable  facts.  Candid  examination  of 
St.  Paul's  argument  shows  there  is  by  no  means  adequate 

*  According  to  the  reading  adopted  in  Dean  Alford's  Revised  Version 
(1  Thess.  iii.  2),  Timothy  is  denominated  &  fellow-worker  with  God.  But, 
doubtless,  the  Dean  never  guessed  his  amended  text  and  translation 
might  involve  the  Deification  of  Timothy. 


OLD    TESTAMENT    TEXTS    APPLIED    TO    CHRIST.  195 

ground  for  averting  he  intended  the  words  of  Joel  to  desi<r- 
n;ite  Christ.  The  prophet's  language  is  most  likely  quoted 
in  its  true  original  sense,  and  designates  Jehovah.  Looking 
carefully  to  the  preceding  and  subsequent  contexts  of  Horn, 
x.  13,  we  soon  perceive  Mr.  Liddon  should  have  put  conjec 
tural  opinion  in  the  place  of  confident  assertion.  Verse  11 
repeats  in  part  a  quotation  just  previously  made  (ix.  33) 
from  Isaiah  xxviii.  10,  and  relates  to  Christ,  the  foundation- 
stone  in  the  spiritual  Zion.  The  same  Lord  of  all  in  verse 
12  (comp.  Rom.  iii.  29,  30  ;  and,  amending  translation,  ix.  5) 
is  the  Supreme  God  Who  raised  Christ  from  the  dead  (ver. 
9)  ;  Who  lays  the  foundation-stone  in  Zion ;  is  rich  in  mercy 
(Eph.  ii.  4),  and  no  respecter  of  persons  (Acts  x.  34).  The 
promise  (ver.  13)  is  to  all  of  every  nation  who  call  upon  His 
Name;  that  is,  acknowledge  and  serve  him.  Verse  16  no 
tices  parenthetically  the  unbelief  of  the  Jews,  and  in  the 
ensuing  verses  there  is  a  reference  to  the  Gentiles,  and  their 
case  is  contrasted  with  that  of  the  Jews.  The  issue  of  the 
exposition  Mr.  Liddon  indorses  is,  that  the  foundation-stone 
laid  by  Jehovah  is  Jehovah  himself!  The  passage  is  not 
altogether  free  from  obscurity,  and  may  therefore  be  snarled 
over  by  predetermined  theologians  ;  but  to  extort  the  infer 
ence  "  Christ  is  Jehovah  "  is  certainly  to  make  controversial 
convenience,  and  not  probability,  the  standard  of  interpre 
tation. 

To  connect  Jer.  ix.  23,  24,  with  1  Cor.  i.  31,  for  an  argu 
mentative  purpose,  is  quite  beyond  the  license  of  even  theo 
logical  special  pleading.  The  words  of  Jeremiah,  according 
to  the  Septuagint  Version,  which  here  agrees  with  the  extant 
Hebrew  Text,  are, "  Let  not  the  wise  man  glory  in  his  wisdom, 
&c.,  but  let  him  that  glorieth  glory  in  this,  to  understand  and 
to  know  that  I  am  the  Lord,  Who  doeth  mercy,  and  justice, 
and  righteousness  upon  the  earth,  because  in  these  things  is 
my  pleasure,  saith  the  Lord."  If  St.  Paul  really  had  this 
portion  of  Jeremiah  in  view,  and  remembered  its  original 
sense,  the  natural  connection  of  his  thought  would  have 
been  that  God's  goodness  and  mercy  were  exercised  in  send- 


196  GRATUITOUS    ASSUMPTION 

ing  Jesus  Christ  to  become  unto  us  the  channel  of  wisdom 
and  righteousness,  &c.  (see  1  Cor.  i.  30),  and  that  therefore 
the  only  ground  of  boasting  is  in  God,  Who  enriches  us, 
through  Christ,  with  every  spiritual  blessing. 

It  is  strange  that  the  phraseology,  "  Jehovah  visiting  and 
redeeming  His  people,"  did  not  recall  to  Mr.  Liddon's  mind 
the  words,  and  hath  raised  up  a  horn  of  salvation  for  us,  in 
the  house  of  His  servant  David.  If  Christ  is  the  horn  of 
salvation,  then  Jehovah  visited  and  redeemed  His  people  by 
providing  another,  not  by  coming  Himself  (Luke  i.  68,  69 ; 
comp.  vii.  16)  ;  and,  further,  the  verb  translated  visited  is 
properly  looJced  upon,  and  does  not,  when  applied  to  God,  in 
any  degree  convey  the  idea  of  Personal  presence,  as  distin 
guished  from  Providential  observation  and  care.  From  Luke 
ii.  29-31,  we  learn  that  Simeon,  inspired  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
saw  in  Christ  the  God-prepared  Salvation  or  Saviour.  The 
ecclesiastical  meaning  may  be,  "Jehovah  raised  up  and 
prepared  Himself,"  but  it  is  not  the  natural  meaning,  nor  can 
we  accept  it,  without  confessing  the  incompetence  of  reason 
rightly  to  understand  what  is  apparently  the  plainest  lan 
guage  of  Scripture. 

In  a  rush  of  irrelevant  declamatory  questions,  Mr.  Liddon 
sophistically  argues  that,  because  in  the  provinces  of  judg 
ment,  justification,  and  redemption,  Christ  is  certainly  more 
than  mere  man,  therefore  He  is  God.  The  conclusion  does 
not  follow  from  the  premises,  and  if  we  calmly  consult  in 
their  entirety  the  passages  embodying  the  expressions  on 
which  Mr.  Liddon  depends,  we  see  that  the  Apostle  believed 
Christ  to  be  removed  from,  and  subordinate  to,  absolute 
Deity,  no  less  assuredly  than  he  believed  Him  to  be  removed 
from,  and  superior  to,  ordinary  Humanity.  There  is  a  feeble, 
unreflecting  rationalism  running  in  the  wake  of  an  assump 
tion,  involved  in  the  question,  "  If  Jesus  Christ  be  more 
than  man,  is  it  possible  to  suggest  any  intermediate  position 
between  Humanity  and  the  throne  of  God,  which  St.  Paul, 
with  his  earnest  belief  in  the  God  of  Israel,  could  have 
believed  Him  to  occupy?"  (p.  329.)  We  are  not  called 


AND    SPURIOUS    RATIONALISM.  197 

upon  to  suggest  any  thing,  but  to  accept  in  its  plain,  natural 
sense  language  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  which  freely  and 
often  ascribes  Christ's  dignity,  Offices,  and  powers,  to  the 
Almighty's  gift  and  appointment.  Such  language  denotes 
how,  in  the  hearts  and  thoughts  of  the  Canonical  writers, 
Christ  did  occupy  an  intermediate  position  between  Human 
ity  and  the  throne  of  God.  It  solves  Mr.  Lid  don's  difficulty, 
and  exposes  the  futility  of  the  argument  by  which  he  per 
sistently  strives  to  enforce  the  alternative,  "  if  Christ  be  not 
mere  man,  He  must  be  Very  God."  The  presupposition 
involved  in  texts  which  exalt  Christ  and  His  functions,  with 
out  alluding  to  the  ground  of  His  exaltation,  is  not  His 
Deity,  but  His  recipiency  from  Deity  (explicitly  avowed  in 
other  texts)  of  peculiar  dominion,  authority,  and  endow 
ments.  Mr.  Liddon's  knowledge  is  not  only  more  extended 
and  precise  than  that  of  the  Apostles,  but  runs  upon  a  dif 
ferent  line.  Their  language,  reasonably  apprehended,  inti 
mates  that  they  held  Christ  to  fill,  in  virtue  of  conferred 
qualifications,  a  unique  and  exceptional  position  of  spiritual 
Headship  and  Mediation  between  God  and  man.  But  Mr. 
Liddon  perceives  the  idea  of  such  a  position  to  be  inad 
missible.  He  is  able  to  gauge  the  capabilities  of  possible 
Being,  between  man  and  the  Self-Existent  One,  and,  in  the 
absence  of  revealing  statements,  and  in  the  face  of  oppos 
ing  implications,  he  can  deny  that  any  place  exterior  to 
the  Unoriginated  Substance  may  be  consistently  found  for 
Christ's  Person.  It  is  in  vain  Apostles  discriminate  our 
Lord  from  God,  in  a  manner  which  implies  the  actual  division 
of  separate  individual  existence  :  it  is  in  vain  they  indicate 
Christ's  derivation,  origination,  and  dependence  :  it  is  in  vain 
they  refer  Christ's  lordship  and  capacity  to  the  Father's  decree, 
the  Father's  action,  and  the  Father's  gifts  :  it  is  in  vain  St.  Paul 
affirms,  with  repetition,  emphasis,  and  in  the  most  exclusive 
terms,  the  Divine  Unity.  Mr.  Liddon  pronounces, — "  If  Christ 
be  not  God,  St.  Paul  cannot  be  acquitted  of  assigning  to  Him 
generally  a  prominence  which  is  inconsistent  with  serious  loy 
alty  to  monotheistic  Truth."  The  Apostle  earnestly  believes 


198  ENFORCEMENT   OF   A   FALSE    ALTERNATIVE. 

in  One  Divine  Nature,  and  imparts  his  belief  in  unequivocal 
terms ;  he  earnestly  believes  also-  (according  to  Mr.  Liddon's 
hypothesis),  that  Christ  is  mysteriously  internal  to,  and  com 
prised  in,  the  One  Divine  Nature ;  but  he  imparts  his  belief 
by  utterly  abstaining  from  explanation  and  avowal,  and  by 
repeatedly  employing  language  which  means  rationally  noth 
ing,  if  it  does  not  mean,  Christ  is  individually,  and  in  the 
real  ordinary  acceptation  of  the  words,  distinct  from  God, 
inferior  to  God,  and  a  recipient  of  sovereignty  and  endow 
ments  at  God's  hands.  I  have  already  stated  this  more  than 
once  in  substance,  but  Mr.  Liddon's  repetition,  in  various 
guises,  of  the  same  vicious  argument,  compels  repetition  on 
my  part.  He  resolutely  ignores  the  obvious  Scriptural  solu 
tion  of  what  appears  to  him  a  difficulty;  and,. having  taken 
for  granted  the  point  to  be  proved,  proceeds  on  the  assump 
tion  that  the  allusions  which  magnify  our  Lord,  and  give 
prominence  to  His  Person,  offices,  and  claims,  in  the  work 
of  redemption,  and  the  government  of  the  Church,  must  of 
necessity  involve  His  Supreme  Divinity.  Whatever  Apos 
tles  may  have  written,  or  left  unwritten,  Mr.  Liddon's  reason 
decides, —  God  could  not  have  produced  Christ,  and  have 
qualified  Him  by  pre-incarnate  and  incarnate  endowments 
for  the  place  Scripture  assigns  Him.  The  Omnipotent  One 
cannot,  in  the  profoundly  cognizant  philosophy  of  Mr.  Lid- 
don,  be  conceived  to  have  appointed  any  Being  next  to  Him 
self,  who  is  not  also  Himself.  The  limits  and  methods  of 
Creative  might,  the  extent  to  which  the  Great  Parent  can 
inspire  and  inhabit  His  highest  rational  and  spiritual  offspring, 
are  so  exhaustively  exhibited  in  man,  and  in  the  scanty  knowl 
edge  which  the  Scriptures  communicate  respecting  angels, 
that  Mr.  Liddon  can  definitively  mark  the  boundary,  and  say 
where  the  manifestation  of  Divinity  in  dependent  Being 
terminates,  and  where  the  Self-existent  Independent  Sub 
stance  comes  Personally  forth  in  the  entirety  of  Its  attributes, 
to  fold  around  Itself  the  vesture  of  created  Form. 

"  There  is  no  room  in  St.  Paul's  thought  for  an  imaginary 
being  like  the  Arian  Christ,  hovering  indistinctly  between 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    HOLY    EUCHARIST.  199 

created  and  Uncreated  life ;  since,  where  God  is  believed  to 
be  so  utterly  remote  from  the  highest  creatures  beneath  His 
throne,  Christ  must  either  be  conceived  of  as  purely  and 
simply  a  creature  with  no  other  than  a  creature's  nature 
and  rights,  or  He  must  be  adored  as  One  Who  is  for  ever 
and  necessarily  internal  to  the  Uncreated  Life  of  the  Most 
High"  (p.  310). 

The  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence  in  the  Holy  Eucharist, 
which  Catholics,  as  opposed  to  Protestants,  so  deeply  cherish, 
implies  and  encourages  faith  in  the  tenet,  which  is  Mr. 
Liddon's  theme.  He  is  therefore  quite  consistent  in  assuming 
the  literalness  of  the  phraseology  employed  by  St.  Paul 
(1  Cor.  x.  16  ;  xi.  27,  29).  "  The  broken  bread  and  the  cup  of 
blessing  are  not  picturesque  symbols  of  an  absent  Teacher, 
but  veils  of  a  gracious  yet  awful  Presence ;  the  irreverent 
receiver  is  guilty  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  the  Lord,  Which 
he  does  not  discern"  (p.  830). 

Among  the  difficulties  which,  from  the  Protestant  point 
of  view,  encumber  this  exposition,  is  the  fact  of  its  taking 
for  granted  the  existence,  on  the  subject  of  the  Eucharist, 
of  precise  and  explicit  oral  teaching  to  which  the  Acts  and 
Epistles  do  not  in  any  way  allude.  Before  the  terms,  Body 
and  Blood,  could  be  understood  to  signify  an  actual  though 
invisible  presence  of  Christ's  Incarnate  Person,  a  vast  amount 
of  preliminary  instruction,  of  a  unique  and  not  easily  com 
prehensible  kind,  would  be  requisite.  The  marvel  is  that 
the  Corinthians,  being  sufficiently  familiar  with  the  dogma 
of  the  Real  Presence,  to  accept  in  this  sense  St.  Paul's  words, 
should  have  fallen  into  so  shockingly  irreverent  a  fashion  of 
celebrating  the  central,  highest,  and  overwhelmingly  awful 
act  of  Christian  worship.  The  more  simple  and  natural 
meaning  of  the  Apostle's  words  is,  undoubtedly,  the  figura 
tive,  symbolical  meaning,  which  Mr.  Liddon  repudiates. 

What  conceivable  point  is  there  in  the  following  remark 
and  references  ?  —  "  In  the  allusions  to  the  Three  Most  Holy 
Persons,  which  so  remarkably  underlie  the  structure  and 
surface-thought  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  Jesus  Christ 


200  PURPORT    OF   THE   EPHESIAN    EPISTLE. 

is  associated  most  significantly  with  the  Father  and  the  Spirit 
(i.  3,  6,  13;  ii.  18;  iii.  6 ;  coinp.  iii.  14-17)."  In  citing  from 
the  first  of  the  texts  referred  to,  Mr.  Lidclon  warily  omits  the 
title  God.  The  words,  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  (i.  3),  and  also  the  words,  the  God  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  the  Father  of  glory  (i.  17),  do,  doubtless,  con 
tain  a  most  significant  association,  displaying  the  subject,  as 
well  as  the  filial,  relation  in  which  Christ  stands  to  the 
Almighty  King.  That  our  Lord  is  the  beloved  of  God  ;  that 
Christians  are  sealed  with  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  that,  through 
Christ,  both  Jews  and  Gentiles  have  introduction  or  access  by 
One  Spirit  unto  the  Father,  —  are  announcements  from  which 
no  ordinary  process  of  deduction  can  elicit  the  inference, 
Christ  is  internal  to  the  Uncreated  Life  of  the  Most  High. 
But  Mr.  Liddon's  estimate  of  "  the  allusions  to  the  Three 
Most  Holy  Persons  "  in  the  Ephesian  Epistle  is  more  guarded 
than  that  of  a  deservedly  eminent  contemporary  elucidator 
of  Holy  Writ.  Dean  Alford,  in  teaching  How  to  study  the 
New  Testament,  says,  "  The  whole  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians 
is  a  magnificent  apostolic  comment  on  the  doctrine  of  the 
Holy  Trinity,  as  the  Divine  Persons  are  concerned  in  the 
work  of  our  redemption.  Those  who  deny  that  doctrine 
must  either  set  aside  this  Epistle  altogether,  or  must  tear  out 
of  it  all  meaning  and  coherence."  Yet  the  Epistle  not  only 
calls  the  Almighty  Father  the  God  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
but  proclaims  also,  that  "  there  is  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one 
baptism,  One  God  and  Father  of  all,  Who  is  over  all,  and 
through  all,  and  in  all"  (iv.  5,  6).  But  the  measure  in  which 
the  holding  of  the  Church's  doctrine,  when  unaccompanied  by 
a  frank  recognition  of  the  Church's  dogmatic  authority,  can 
warp  and  bias  earnest,  able  minds,  is  painfully  visible  in  Or 
thodox  Protestant  comments  on  the  Sacred  jBook.  Their 
authors  set  aside  perspicuous  and  exact  information;  they 
strip  language  of  all  probable  meaning ;  they  wrest  thought 
out  of  all  coherence,  and  then,  with  amusing  effrontery, 
charge  upon  others  the  very  kind  of  outrages  of  which  they 
themselves  are  guilty.  No  exposition  of  the  Epistle  to  the 


TEXTS   FROM    COLOSSIANS    AND    PHILIPPIANS.  201 

Ephesians  can  be  faithful  and  consistent,  which  does  not 
recognize,  along  with  our  Lord's  highly  exalted  dignity,  His 
separation  from,  and  inferiority  to,  the  Self-existent  One, 
the  sole  ultimate  Supremacy,  and  originating  Energy  of  God, 
as  the  Giver  of  grace,  and  the  primary  Sovereign  Ruler  in 
all  the  arrangements  and  dispensations  of  creation  and  redemp 
tion,  are  so  uniformly  conspicuous  throughout  the  Epistle, 
that  it  is  astonishing  how  even  the  prejudices  of  theological 
training,  hardened  by  the  corroborating  assent  of  numbers, 
can  be  blind  to  them.  In  this  as  in  every  other  New 
Testament  document,  the  God  and  Father,  to  Whom  we 
are  admonished  to  give  thanks,  in  the  name  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  (v.  20),  appears  to  be  the  only  God  with  Whom 
the  writer  was  acquainted. 

Some  detached  texts  from  the  Colossian  and  Philippian 
Epistles  are  made  to  swell  the  inferential  argument,  by  deduc 
tive  processes  which  I  need  not  again  particularize.  The 
treatment  of  two  texts,  however,  deserves  special  notice. 
On  the  ground  of  Col.  ii.  3  (i.  19  ;  ii.  9  being  referred  to  as 
confirmatory),  we  are  informed :  "  In  the  Epistle  to  the 
Colossians,  Jesus  Christ  is  said  to  possess  the  intellectual  as 
well  as  the  other  attributes  of  Deity."  Now,  even  as  the 
text  is  commonly  read,  we  are  quite  at  liberty  to  translate  : 
in  which  (mystery)  are  hid  all  the  treasures  of  wisdom  and 
knowledge.  But  the  words  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Christ 
are  of  very  doubtful  genuineness.  Of  God,  Father  of  Christ, 
and  of  the  God  of  Christ,  are  the  better  readings  from  the 
more  ancient  MSS.  Dean  Alford  strikes  out  the  doubtful 
words,  and  reads  simply  of  God,  leaving  no  choice  but  to 
join  the  relative  pronoun  with  mystery,  and  render  in  which, 
or  wherein  ;  for  the  mere  grammatical  possibility  of  referring 
the  relative  to  God  need  not  be  considered.  On  the  whole, 
therefore,  probability  is  heavily  against  Mr.  Liddon's  inter 
pretation  of  the  passage,  to  say  nothing  of  the  strain 
involved  in  the  identification  of  all  the  treasures  of  wisdom 
and  knowledge  with  the  intellectual  attributes  of  Deity. 

The  other  text  is  Phil.  ii.   10,  wherein  Mr.  Liddon  con- 


202        MR.  LIDDON'S  INDISPENSABLE  ASSUMPTION. 

ceives  it  to  be  "expressly  said  that  all  created  beings  in 
Heaven,  on  earth,  and  m  hell,  when  Christ's  triumph  is  com 
plete,  shall  acknowledge  the  Majesty  even  of  His  Human 
Nature."  Now,  as  everybody  is  aware,  this  text,  read  in  the 
original,  has  in  the  Name,  &c.,  and  it  is  for  from  certain 
in  the  Name  of  Jesus  means  at  the  Name.  The  Apostle's 
meaning  may  have  been,  that,  in  the  Name  of  Jesus  as  Lord 
and  Leader,  the  whole  race  of  Man,  both  in  Heaven,  on 
earth,  and  in  Hades,  should  worship  God  (comp.  Rom.  xiv. 
11).  In  Col.  i.  20,  God  is  said  to  reconcile  unto  Himself  all 
things,  on  earth,  and  in  heaven,  through  Christ,  —  an  apos 
tolic  statement,  the  exact  sense  of  which  is  difficult  to  pene 
trate.  But  whether  in  virtue  of  the  exaltation  and  the  Name 
bestowed  by  the  Father,  Christ  was  Himself  to  receive  the 
homage  of  the  hosts  who  people  the  seen  and  unseen  realms  ; 
or  was  to  be  their  Leader  and  Master  in  the  adoration  of  the 
Blessed  and  Qnly  Potentate;  His  God  and  their  God,— 
is  a  point  about  which,  while  attention  is  directed  to  one 
text  alone,  discussion  is  sure  to  be  inconclusive  and  unprofit 
able.  Mr.  Liddon's  argument  is  palpably  weak,  because, 
influenced  by  a  pardonable  anxiety  to  restrict  the  phrase, 
God  highly  exalted  Him,  &c.,  to  Christ's  human  nature,  he 
has  made  that  nature  Personal,  whereas  his  own  repeated 
definitions  affirm  our  Lord's  human  nature  to  have  no  indi 
vidual  personal  Being,  but  to  be  folded  as  a  garment  round 
a  Divine  Person. 

Returning  again  to  the  indispensable  assumption  that  a 
Christ  not  truly  God  can  fill  no  exceptional  special  place  and 
office  between  man  and  God,  Mr.  Liddon  exclaims  in  a 
triumphantly  defiant  strain  :  "  Substitute,  if  you  can,  through 
out  any  one  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  the  name  of  the  first  of 
the  saints,  or  of  the  highest  among  the  angels,  for  the  Name 
of  the  Divine  Redeemer,  and  see  how  it  reads.  Accept  the 
Apostle's  implied  challenge.  Imagine  for  a  moment  that 
Paul  was  crucified  for  you  ;  that  you  were  baptized  in  the 
name  of  Paul ;  that  wisdom,  holiness,  redemption,  come 
from  an  Apostle  who,  saint  though  he  be,  is  only  a  brother 


PAUL'S    "  IMPLIED    CHALLENGE."  203 

man.*  .  .  .  Why  is  it  that,  when  coupled  with  any  other 
name,  however  revered  and  saintly,  the  words  of  Paul  re 
specting  Jesus  Christ  must  seem  not  merely  strained,  but 
exaggerated  and  blasphemous?"  (p.  339.) 

The  paltry  fallaciousness  of  this,  and  much  more  of  the 
like  kind,  needs  no  detailed  exposure.  The  argument  does  not 
touch  the  point  at  issue,  but  dmply  amounts  to  the  inquiry, 
Why  can  you  not  substitute  for  a  Being  whom  God  has  sent 
and  qualified,  and  highly  exalted  for  the  accomplishment  of 
a  particular  purpose,  some  man,  or  some  ange1,  whom  God  has 
not  so  sent  and  qualified  and  exalted  ?  And  the  proximate 
context  of  one  passage  irom  which  Mr.  Liddon  draws  (1 
Cor.  i.  13)  involves  intimations  utterly  at  variance  with  his 
deduction.  How  could  the  divided  Corinthians  have  used 
the  names  of  Paul  and  Apollos,  and  Cephas,  and  Christ,  in 
distinctive  party  cries,  if  they  had  been  taught  to  believe  in 
Christ's  Godhead  ?  Would  the  most  ordinary  intelligence, 
and  the  least  particle  of  reverent  feeling,  have  allowed  pro 
fessions  of  attachment  and  discipleship  to  Apostles  and 
Evangelists  to  be  associated  and  balanced  with  professions 
of  attachment  and  discipleship  to  Christ  ?  Would  not  the 
declaration  I  am  of  Christ  have  been  at  once,  and  justly, 
felt  to  condemn  and  silence  every  factious  watchword  ?  St. 
Paul's  "  implied  challenge  "  does  not  hint  that  Christ  is  God. 
The  evidence  desiderated  from  the  Canonical  Writings  is  defi 
nite  acknowledgment,  or,  at  the  very  least,  plainly  probable 
implication  of  Christ's  Deity.  Mr.  Liddon  meets  the  require 
ment  by  practically  ignoring  the  passages  which  definitely 
ascribe  Christ's  sufficiency  to  the  Father's  plan  and  gifts,  and 
by  dragging  inferences,  more  desperate  than  ingenious,  out  of 
vague  and  elastic  materials.  The  process  is  only  a  variety 

*  The  turn  here  given  to  1  Cor.  i.  30,  if  not  the  result  of  inadvertence, 
is  something  worse.  The  Apostle  wrote  :  "'  Of  God  are  ye  in  Christ  Jesus, 
who  has  become  wisdom  to  us  from  God,"  &c.,  the  preposition  implying 
sent  from. 

A  just  perception  of  the  origin  and  meaning  of  much  of  St.  Paul's 
language  is  shown  in  a  remark  of  Professor  Jowett,  on  Gal.  i.  1  :  "  The 
whole  work  of  Christ,  in  all  its  parts,  becomes  an  attribute  of  God." 


204  DOES    CHRIST   AS   AN    OBJECT   OF    FAITH 

of  the  familiar  isolation,  packing,  straining,  neglect  of  con 
texts,  and  intrusion  of  senses.  Obscure,  ambiguous,  plastic, 
and  figurative  phrases  are  laid  under  contribution,  and  thus 
arguments  are  fabricated  to  show  —  "A  Divine  Christ  is 
implied  in  St.  Paul's  account  of  Faith ; "  and,  again,  "  in  his 
account  of  Regeneration ; "  and  that  "  the  doctrine  of  our 
Lord's  Divinity  is  the  key  to  the  greatest  polemical  struggle 
of  the  Apostle's  whole  life,  —  the  controversy  with  the  Juda- 
izers."  Neither  man  nor  angel  having  received  a  commission 
and  endowments  resembling  those  which  God  is  expressly 
said  to  have  bestowed  on  Christ,  the  Apostolical  diction  will, 
confessedly,  fit  neither  man  nor  angel,  and  therefore,  "  my 
brethren,  what  becomes  of  this  language,  if  Jesus  Christ  be 
not  truly  God?"  (p.  348.)  In  the  minds  of  those  already 
convinced  beyond  all  doubt  and  misgiving  that  Christ  is 
truly  God,  Mr.  Liddon's  pleadings  will  perhaps  create  satis 
faction  ;  but  in  the  minds  of  those  who  study  the  Apostle's 
words,  and  seek  with  open-mindedness  to  ascertain  his  mean 
ing,  they  will  create  amazement. 

Is  one  unprepossessed  searcher  of  the  Apostle's  writings 
likely  to  be  persuaded  by  wily  manipulation  of  clauses,  rent 
from  the  thought  involved  in  closely  adjacent  expressions, 
that  St.  Paul  entertained  the  dogma  of  Christ's  Godhead, 
because  he  sets  forth  Christ  as  an  Object  of  faith?  It  is 
the  chicanery  of  polemics,  and  not  sound  reasoning,  to  start 
from  the  tacitly  assumed  or  loosely  stated  premise,  "God 
alone  is  the  Object  of  Christian  faith."  In  the  highest  sense 
He  is  so ;  but  is  there  no  lower  sense,  and  may  not  the  Messiah, 
and  the  One,  Mediator  between  the  One  God  and  mankind, 
have  an  altogether  exceptional  standing,  and  unwonted 
claims  ?  The  truly  pertinent  question  is,  —  Does  the  Apostle 
avow  or  enjoin  belief  in  Christ  as  God?  Reasonable  expo 
sition  can  find  no  such  avowal  or  injunction.  Only  by 
marvellously  distorting  inferences,  and  remorseless  scorn  for 
context,  can  the  conclusion  be  made  decently  plausible : 
"  In  the  spiritual  teaching  of  St.  Paul,  Christ  eclipses  God, 
if  He  is  not  God;  since  it  is  emphatically  Christ's  Person, 


IMPLY  CHRIST'S  GODHEAD?  205 

as  warranting  the  preciousness  of  His  work,  which  is  the 
Object  of  justifying  faith.  ISTor  can  it  be  shown  that  the 
intellect  and  heart  and  will  of  man  conld  conspire  to  give 
to  God  a  larger  tribute  of  spiritual  homage  than  they  are 
required  by  the  Apostle  to  give  to  Christ"  (p.  344). 

Texts,  which  must  regulate  rational  interpretation,  clearly 
conduct  to  a  conclusion  totally  different  from  the  preced 
ing.  The  condensed  summary  of  St.  Paul's  testimony,  both 
to  Jews  and  Greeks,  —  "  Repentance  toward  God,  and  faith 
toward  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ"  (Acts  xx.  21), —  plainly  im 
plies  the  supremely  higher  faith  and  duty,  of  which  the  One 
God  and  Father  is  the  Object.  And  the  Roman  Christians 
are  taught  to  regard  themselves  as  "being  justified  freely 
by  God's  grace,  through  the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ 
Jesus,  whom  God  set  forth  as  a  propitiation,  through  faith 
in  (by?)  his  blood,  &c.,  that  God  may  be  just,  and  the  Justi- 
fier  of  him  who  is  of  faith  in  Jesus  "  (Rom.  iii.  24-26). 

The  commencing  words  of  Romans  v.,  duly  read  in  their 
connection  with  verse  24  of  the  previous  chapter,  show  t£at, 
in  St.  Paul's  mind,  justifying  faith  was  faith  "  on  Him  who 
raised  Jesus  our  Lord  from  the  dead,"  in  strict  keeping  with 
another  lucid  statement  in  the  same  Epistle  (x.  9)  — "  If 
thou  shalt  confess  with  thy  mouth  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  shalt 
believe  in  thine  heart  that  God  raised  Him  from  the  dead, 
thon  shalt  be  saved."  The  saints,  and  faithful  brethren  also, 
at  Colossa3,  are  instructed  to  reckon  themselves  "  raised  with 
Christ  in  their  baptism,  through  the  faith  in  the  operation  of 
God,  Who  raised  Him  from  the  dead"  (Col.  ii.  12). 

Faith  in  Jesus  as  God's  Son  and  Messenger,  and  by  God's 
edict,  and  in  virtue  of  God's  endowments,  our  Redeemer, 
Teacher,  and  Example  here,  and  in  his  exaltation  at  God's 
right  hand,  the  earnest  of  our  glory  hereafter,  is  confessedly 
among  the  items  of  a  full  Pauline  faith  in  the  Almighty 
Father,  and  the  Almighty  Father's  methods.  And  this  faith 
agrees  with  the  doctrine  dictated  in  those  Canonical  docu 
ments  which  Mr.  Liddon  more  particularly  prizes.  Charac 
teristic  features  of  Christian  faith  and  knowledge  are,  that 


206  EXTRA-SCRIPTURAL   PRESUMPTION. 

"  Christ  came  forth  from,  .and  was  sent  by,  the  Father " 
(John  xvi.  27 ;  xvii.  25)  ;  and  that  "  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  or 
Messiah,  the  Son  of  God"  (John  xx.  31 ;  1  John  v.  1).  If 
belief  in  Christ  has  the  promise  of  everlasting  life,  it  is  in 
consequence  of  the  loving  purpose  and  will  of  Him  Who 
gave  and  sent  Christ  (John  iii.  16 ;  vi.  40 ;  1  John  iii.  23) ; 
and  Jesus  Himself  is  recorded  to  have  said :  "  This  is  the 
work  of  God,  that  ye  should  believe  in  Him  whom  He  sent." 
"  Believe  (or,  ye  believe)  in  God,  believe  also  in  me  "  (John 
vi.  29;  xiv.  1).  The  very  statements  which  magnify  Jesus 
most  are,  unless  interpretation  be  dominated  by  distinct 
extra- Scriptural  disclosure  of  His  Deity,  singularly  inconso 
nant  with  the  conception  of  His  Deity.  But,  in  the  Lectures 
I  am  examining,  argument  is  supposed  to  have  prepared  for 
the  assertion, — 

"It  would,  then,  be  a  considerable  error  to  recognize  the 
doctrine  of  our  Lord's  Divinity  only  in  those  passages  of  St. 
Paul's  writings  which  distinctly  assert  it.  The  indirect  evi- 
dei^ce  of  the  Apostle's  hold  upon  the  doctrine  is  much  wider 
and  deeper  than  to  admit  of  being  exhibited  in  a  given  num 
ber  of  isolated  texts ;  since  the  doctrine  colors,  underlies,  in 
terpenetrates,  the  most  characteristic  features  of  his  thought 
and  teaching.  The  proof  of  this  might  be  extended  almost 
indefinitely"  (p.  348). 

Why  not  quite  indefinitely?  The  presumed  "evidence" 
is  put  together  without  regard  to  contexts,  logic,  or  common 
sense. 

Before  quitting  the  subject  of  St.  Paul's  testimony,  can 
dor  and  honesty  require  us  to  examine  searchingly  some 
prominent  features  which,  from  Mr.  Liddon's  stand-point,  ar*» 
more  prudently  evaded  than  discussed.  My  use  of  the  seem 
ingly  positive  witness  which  the  New  Testament  furnishes 
against  the  dogma  of  our  Lord's  proper  Deity  has  hitherto 
been  allusive  and  incidental,  rather  than  detailed  and  direct. 
I  have  had  occasion  to  expose  the  weakness  of  the  defences, 
rather  than  actively  to  assail  the  position  defended.  But 
there  are  texts  in  the  writings  of  St.  Paul  which  have  no 


THE   PROTESTANT    AND    THE    CATHOLIC    GROUND.        207 

rational  significance  at  all,  if  they  do  not  exclude  the  doc 
trine  for  which  Mr.  Liddon  contends.  I  argue,  of  course, 
from  the  Protestant  ground,  that  Holy  Scripture  contains  a 
Revelation  addressed  to  the  human  intelligence,  and  is  a  suf 
ficient  Rule  for  the  instruction  of  the  human  mind  in  matters 
of  Faith,  as  well  as  of  practice.  From  the  Catholic  ground, 
that  Scripture  is  only  a  subordinate  factor  in  a  complex 
Rule,  and  is  constructed  by  Divine  Wisdom  to  be  valueless 
in  relation  to  the  mysteries  of  the  Faith,  apart  from  the 
Church's  authoritative  interpreting  voice,  merely  logical 
deductions  have  manifestly  no  place,  and  merely  rational 
conclusions  no  weight.  The  weakness  of  Mr.  Liddon's  book 
results  from  the  fact  of  his  not  avowedly  standing  upon  the 
Catholic  ground,  but  writing  as  though  reason  could  follow 
the  steps,  and  reach  the  decisions  of  ecclesiastical  inspiration, 
in  ascertaining  the  sense  of  documents  which  are  themselves 
adapted  by  inspiration  to  veil  their  meaning  from  every  gaze 
but  that  of  divinely  illuminated  ecclesiastical  insight.  I  dis 
claim  the  notion  that,  in  criticising  his  pleas,  I  am  dealing 
with  the  broad  and  comprehensive  question,  whether  his 
doctrine  is  true  or  fhlse  ;  I  deal  only  with  the  narrow  and 
partial  question,  whether  it  can  or  cannot  be  proved  from 
Scripture,  by  proofs  which  the  human  understanding  can 
comprehend  and  accept.  My  clerical  brethren  will  readily 
perceive  the  wide  difference  between  the  two  questions ;  and 
signs  are  not  wanting  that  educated  laymen  are  awakening 
to  perceive  capability  of  Scripture  proof  to  be  no  necessary 
credential  of  the  profound  mysteries  on  which  the  Orthodox 
presentation  of  Christian  faith  and  worship  turns. 

But,  descending  from  the  higher  Catholic  level,  to  Protest 
ant  principle,  and  the  intelligence  common  to  man ;  if  the 
dogma  of  Christ's  Godhead  had  been  broached  in  St.  Paul's 
days,  and  he  had  wished  to  deny  it,  his  formal  negative 
might,  indeed,  have  been  more  pointed  in  shape,  but  scarcely 
more  positive  in  substance,  than  some  expressions  which  he 
has  actually  employed.  Of  course,  a  theory  has  been  elabo 
rated  to  explain  away  the  opposition,  —  so  palpable  to  the 


208  PAUL'S  POSITIVE  TESTIMONY 

unsuppressed  intellect,  —  between  Church  dogma  and  Apo- 
tolic  teaching.  The  distinctive  form  of  St.  Paul's  Christol- 
ogy  leads  him,  Ave  are  apprised,  to  insist  upon  the  truth  of 
our  Lord's  Humanity,  and  to  dwell  upon  Christ's  Manhood 
as  the  Instrument  of  Mediation  between  God  and  Man. 

"  It  is  as  Man  that  Christ  is  contrasted  with  our  first  par 
ent  ;  and  it  is  in  virtue  of  His  Manhood  that  He  is  our  Me 
diator,  our  Redeemer  (1  Tim.ii.  5,  6),  our  Saviour  from  Satan's 
power,  our  Intercessor  with  the  Father  (Heb.  ii.  14;  v.  1). 
Great  stress,  indeed,  does  St.  Paul  lay  upon  the  Manhood  of 
Christ,  as  the  instrument  of  His  mediation  between  earth 
and  heaven,  as  the  channel  through  which  intellectual  truth 
and  moral  strength  descend  from  God  into  the  souls  of  men, 
as  the  Exemplar  wherein  alone  human  nature  has  recovered 
its  ideal  beauty,  as  entering  a  sphere  wherein  the  Sinless  One 
could  offer  the  perfect  world-representing  sacrifice  of  a  truly 
obedient  Will.  So  -earnestly  and  constantly  does  St.  Paul's 
thought  dwell  on  our  Lord's  Mediating  Humanity,  that  to 
unreflecting  persons  his  language  might  at  times  appear  to 
imply  that  Jesus  Christ  is  personally  an  inferior  being,  exter 
nal  to  the  Unity  of  the  Diviae  Essence.  Thus  he  tells  the 
Corinthians,  "  that  Christians  have  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as 
well  as  One  God  (1  Cor.  viii.  6).  Thus  he  reminds  St.  Tim 
othy  that  there  is  One  God,  and  One  Mediator  between  God 
and  man,  —  the  Man  Christ  Jesus,  Who  gave  Himself  a  ran 
som  for  all  (1  Tim.  ii.  5,  6).  Thus  he  looks  forward  to  a  day 
when  the  Son  Himself  also,  meaning  thereby  Christ's  sacred 
Manhood,  shall  be  subject  to  Him  That  put  all  things  under 
Him,  that  God  may  be  all  in  all  (1  Cor.  xv.  28).  It  is  at 
least  certain  that  no  modern  Humanitarian  could  recognize 
the  literal  reality  of  our  Lord's  Humanity  with  more  explic- 
itness  than  did  the  Apostle,  who  had  never  seen  Him  on 
earth,  and  to  whom  He  had  been  made  known  by  visions 
which  a  Docetic  enthusiast  might  have  taken  as  sufficient 
warrant  for  denying  His  real  participation  in  our  flesh  and 
blood"  (pp.  305-307). 

But  this  limitation  of  obnoxious  texts  to  our  Lord's  medi- 


209 

ating  Manhood  admits  of  no  justification.  To  the  unbiassed 
expositor  it  must  seem  purely  arbitrary,  and  nothing  better 
than  an  expedient  for  reconciling  with  a  foregone  dogmatic 
conclusion  language  of  which  the  simple  natural  meaning  is 
adverse.  And  the  expedient  is  not  reinforced  by  bold  affir 
mations  about  the  "  Apostle's  general  teaching,"  and  specious 
concessions  that  "particular  texts,  when  duly  isolated  from 
that  teaching,  may  be  pressed  with  plausible  eifect  into  the 
service  of  Arian  or  Humanitarian  theories."  The  particular 
texts  in  question  lose  none  of  their  prima  facie  rational  sig 
nificance,  when  studied  in  the  closest  connection  with  their 
contexts ;  and  their  sense  is,  besides,  too  specific  and  complete 
for  any  isolation  to  affect  it.  When  we  examine  them,  the 
perverse  sophistry  of  the  pleading  which  seeks  to  shun  their 
force  becomes  very  evident. 

"  None  other  is  God  except  One.  For  though  there  be 
that  are  called  gods,  whether  in  heaven  or  upon  earth  (as 
there  be  gods  many,  and  lords  many),  yet  to  us  there  is  One 
God,  the  Father,  of  (from)  Whom  are  all  things  and  we  for 
(unto)  Him,  and  One  Lord,  Jesus  Christ,  through  Whom  are 
all  things,  and  we  through  Him"  (1  Cor.  viii.  4-6). 

Now  here,  in  the  reference  to  the  heathen  gods  and  lords, 
there  is  an  allusion  to  the  division  into  greater  and  lesser 
deities,  the  imaginary  superhuman  powers,  celestial  and  ter 
restrial,  of  the  idolatrous  pantheon.  In  that  classification  the 
lords  were,  doubtless,  inferior  to  the  gods,  and  were  supposed 
to  hold  intermediate  places  and  offices  between  the  gods 
and  mankind ;  they  were  often  only  deified  creatures.  The 
Apostle,  therefore,  introduces  the  distinction  between  the 
One  God,  and  the  One  Lord,  of  Christians,  in  a  manner  which 
must  inevitably  have  taught  the  Corinthians  to  deem  Christ 
external,  and  inferior,  to  the  Godhead,  unless  they  were  in 
possession  of  some  secret  and  explicit  oral  teaching  which 
adequately  neutralized  the  subtle  and  designed  inaccuracy  of 
the  Written  Word.  And,  besides,  the  Apostle's  language  is 
in  itself  a  direct,  unconditional  declaration,  "  there  is  no  God 
but  One,  namely,  the  Father" 

14 


210  THE   "  ONE   GOD  "    AND   "  ONE   LORD." 

Mr.  Liddon  feels  the  opposing  weight  of  the  text,  and  in 
a  note  to  p.  306  has  condescended  to  quibble  as  follows : 
"  Here,  however,  (1)  Lord,  as  contrasted  with  God,  implies 
no  necessary  inferiority,  else  we  must  say  that  the  Father  is 
not  Lord;*  while  (2)  the  clause,  through  Whom  are  all 
things,  and  we  through  Him,  which  cannot  be  restricted  to 
our  Lord's  redemptive  work  without  extreme  exegetical  arbi 
trariness,  and  which  certainly  refers  to  His  creation  of  the 
Universe,  placts  Jesus  Christ  on  a  level  with  the  Father 
Compare  the  position  of  dia  (through)  between  tj  (of  or 
from)  and  sig  (for),  Rom.  xi.  36  (compare  Col.  i.  16).  Our 
Lord  is  here  distinguished  from  the  One  God  as  being  Human 
as  well  as  Divine."  This  is  indeed  the  weakest  of  shuffling 
evasions.  Lord,  though  in  itself  a  lower,  and  by  no  means 
exclusive  designation  (see  Matt.  xv.  27 ;  xxi.  30 ;  xxvii.  63 ; 
Luke  xvi.  3,  5,  8;  xix.  33;  John  xii.  21;  xx.  15;  Acts  x.  4; 
xvi.  16,  19,  30;  xxv.  26;  Rev.  vii.  14),  is,  when  used  of  the 
Almighty,  equivalent  to  God,  simply  because  it  is  so  used ; 
but  God  is  the  supreme  title  of  dominion,  and  covers  all 
imaginable  rights  and  claims  of  Lordship. 

The  fact  of  all  things  being  mstrumentally  through  Christ 
does  not  put  Him  on  a  level  with  the  Father,  from  Whom 
are  all  things,  but  allots  Him,  so  far  as  a  brief  expression  can, 
a  distinctly  secondary  inferior  position,  by  implying  He  was 
the  ministerial  channel,  and  not  the  original  Source  and  Pos 
sessor  of  creative  power.  In  wThat  sense  and  manner  the 
Apostle  believed  Christ  to  have  been  the  Father's  Instrument 

*  The  argument  that  the  title  Lord,  being  often  applied  to  the  Father, 
is  not  necessarily  inferior  to  God,  though  contemptible  enough,  is,  in  form, 
a  shade  better  than  that  which  Bloomfield  borrowed  from  Dr.  Pye  Smith : 
"  The  Deity  of  Christ  can  no  more  be  denied  because  the  Father  is  here 
called  the  One  God,  than  the  dominion  of  the  Father  can  be  denied  be 
cause  the  Son  is  called  the  One  Lord."  Bloomfield  continued  :  "  By  this 
mode  of  expression  it  is  intimated  that  Father  and  Son  ai*e  one  God,  and 
one  Lord,  in  the  Unity  of  the  Godhead."  Exactly  so,  to  those  whom 
carelessness  or  prepossession  qualifies  to  receive  the  intimation  ;  but,  then, 
by  what  other  mode  of  expression,  short  of  formal  negation,  could  it  be 
intimated  that  the  Father  and  Son  are  not  "  one  God,  and  one  Lord,  in  the 
Unity  of  the  Godhead  "  1 


CREATION   PLAINLY   ASCRIBED    TO    GOD. 

in  creation  (if,  indeed,  the  text  refers  to  creation  generally), 
we  cannot  say.  Perhaps  his  ideas  on  the  subject  were  no 
clearer  than  our  own ;  but,  when  we  are  interpreting  his 
language,  we  have  no  warrant  to  deny,  in  the  teeth  of  his 
words,  that  Christ  was  an  Instrument,  because  to  our  under 
standings  creation,  through  instrumental  agency,  appears 
incomprehensible  or  unlikely.  The  case  stands  thus:  with 
unmistakable  clearness  and  abundant  frequency,  creation  is, 
in  Scripture,  ascribed  to  God.  In  a  very  few  phrases  of  some 
what  obscure  meaning,  instrumental  constructive  action  seems 
to  be  also  ascribed  to  Christ.  That  the  Omnipotent  Father 
is  the  primary  Fountain  of  Creative  Energy,  Will,  and  Might, 
is,  therefore,  indisputably  a  revelation  contained  in  Scripture. 
If  Mr.  Liddon  admits  the  Father's  having  made  Christ  His 
Instrument  in  the  work  of  creation,  and  then  contends  that, 
because  the  power  of  the  Highest  was  exerted  through  Christ, 
therefore  Christ  is  on  a  level  with  the  Highest,  his  reasoning 
needs  no  refutation. 

The  assertion,  "  The  One  Lord  is  distinguished  fron  the  One 
God,  as  being  Human  as  well  as  Divine,"  is  purely  gratui 
tous.  If  Christ  is  really  God,  His  Humanity  is  not  the  seat 
of  His  distinct  personality,  and  does  not  annul  or  lower  His 
Deity.  Evidence  of  the  greatest  weight  and  strength  is  ne 
cessary  to  render  feasible  the  conjecture ;  St.  Paul's  language 
to  the  Corinthians  was  the  utterance  of  a  sincere  man,  whose 
fully  expressed  faith  would  have  been,  "to  us  there  is  One 
God  and  One  Lord  Who  is  both  God  and  Man"  The  addi 
tional  proposition  imports  a  new  and  confusing  element, 
which,  in  the  absence  of  cogent  proof,  only  blind  prejudice 
will  be  content  to  accept. 

A  text  parallel  to  that  just  examined  is  Eph.  iv.  6,  the 
sense  of  which  undoubtedly  is,  "  God  is  the  God  and  Father 
of  all  in  every  conceivable  respect,  exerting  power  over  all, 
acting  through  all,  and  dwelling  in  all"  (Winer).  The  way 
in  which  the  Apostle's  language  divides  Him  from  the  one 
Lord  would  seem  to  have  been  devised  for  the  very  purpose 
of  misleading  and  bewildering  the  intellect,  if  they  are  both 


212          THE  "ONE  MEDIATOR"  UA  MAN,"  ETC. 

enclosed  in  the  same  Nature,  and  bound  together  by  insepa 
rable  unity  of  Being.  But  the  text  has  been,  by  theological 
dogmatists,  explained  to  imply  the  existence  and  activity  of 
the  whole  Trinity,  in  the  following  fashion :  "  Over  all  as  Fa 
ther;  through  all  by  the  Word;  and  in  all  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  —  a  commentary  which  strikingly  exhibits  the  effect 
of  the  later  and  extra-scriptural  stages  of  Revelation  in 
irradiating  the  earlier,  and  bringing  hidden  things  to  light. 

The  restricting  of  the  description  —  a  man  Christ  Jesus 
icho  gave  Himself  a  ransom  for  all  (1  Tim.  ii.  5,  6)  —  to 
our  Lord's  Mediating  Humanity  is  mere  caprice,  exercised  in 
subservience  to  dogmatic  exigency.  Elsewhere  Mr.  Liddon 
insists  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  Godhead  is  requisite  to  "  re 
deem  from  exaggeration  the  New  Testament  representations 
of  the  effects  of  His  Death."  It  is  needless  to  inquire 
whether  this  way  of  putting  the  case  is  empty  verbal  struct 
ure,  or  the  expression  of  real  ideas.  To  me  it  appears  to 
be  mainly  the  former,  but  it  is  among  the  accredited  methods 
of  showing  how  the  Canonical  writers  mean  what  they 
do  not  say.  With  genuine  theological  readiness  to  con 
struct  from  his  own  ignorance  and  draw  upon  his  own  imagi 
nation,  Mr.  Liddon  asks,  in  his  final  Lecture,  "  How  was  a 
real  reconciliation  between  God  and  His  creatures  to  be 
effected,  unless  the  Reconciler  had  some  natural  capacity  for 
mediating,  unless  he  could  represent  God  to  man  no  less 
truly  than  man  to  God  ?  "  (p.  478.)  St.  Paul,  then,  we  must 
presume,  contemplated  only  one  side  of  this  natural  capacity 
when  he  declared  to  Timothy,  there  is  one  God  and  one  Me 
diator  between  G-od  and  men,  a  Man,  Christ  Jesus,  who  gave 
Himself  a  ransom  for  all.  But  is  it  not  in  the  highest 
degree  improbable  that  St.  Paul  should,  in  such  a  passage, 
omit  all  reference  to  our  Lord's  Divine  Personal  Being,  and 
with  misguiding  inexactness  style  Christ's  Humanity  Him 
self  f  He  writes  of  the  One  individual  God  of  all  mankind, 
and  the  one  individual  Mediator  between  God  and  mankind, 
and  he  calls  the  Mediator  a  Man.  It  may  be  argued :  if 
Christ's  pre-existence  be  admitted,  the  fact  of  His  Humanity 


THE   "  INVISIBLE   ONLY   GOD."  213 

does  not  exclude  His  possession  of  another  nature,  and  Mr. 
Liddon  does  remark  (p.  312)  that  the  phrase  "was  manifested 
in  the  flesh  (1  Tim.  iii.  16)  at  least  implies  that  Christ  ex 
isted  before  this  manifestation."  Whether  the  phrase  really 
carries  the  asserted  implication  is  very  debatable,  even  if  we 
leave  out  of  our  reckoning  the  important  circumstance  that 
the  reading,  which  was  manifested,  instead  of  who  was  mani 
fested,  is  found  in  the  Latin  Vulgate,  and  is  otherwise  not 
devoid  of  authority.  But,  granting  the  implication  of  pre- 
existence,  the  fact  remains,  —  in  their  simple,  primary,  una 
dulterated  import,  the  words  there  is  One  God  and  one 
Mediator,  &c.,  do  exclude  the  Mediator  from  the  Unity  and 
Nature  of  Deity.  If  St.  Paul  intended  Timothy  to  infer  the 
One  Mediator  was  God  or  God-man,  there  is  nothing  he  may 
not  have  intended,  and  no  connection  is  traceable  between 
his  language  and  his  thoughts :  One  may  be  the  negation  of 
unity ;  God  may  mean  Man,  and  Man  may  mean  God. 

In  this  same  First  Epistle  to  Timothy  are  two  other  pas 
sages  which  remarkably  illustrate  the  extreme  latency  and 
reserve  of  Scriptural  inspiration  on  the  topic  of  Christ's 
Deity.  One  of  these  passages  precedes,  by  only  a  few  sen 
tences,  that  already  discussed,  and  is  a  doxology,  wherein 
the  Almighty  is  styled  Incorruptible,  Invisible,  Alone  God 
(i.  17).  And,  in  conjunction  with  this  doxology,  we  cannot 
fail  to  notice  how  the  previous  verse  contains  the  statement : 
that  in  me  Jesus  Christ  might  shoio  forth  all  long-suffering, 
&c.,  a  statement  from  which  it  might  be  argued  that  Christ 
Jesus  was  believed  to  wield  the  prerogatives  of  Divinity,  and 
so  was,  in  the  deeper  thought  of  the  Apostle,  identified  with 
God.  But  the  immediately  subsequent  recognition  of  the 
Invisible  Only  God  forbids  the  argument,  and  indicates  that, 
in  the  mind  of  the  Apostle,  Christ  was  not  elevated  to  the 
height  of  Godhead. 

The  second  passage  to  which  I  refer  is,  what  Mr.  Liddon 
justly  considers  to  be,  "  the  richest  and  most  glorious  of  the 
doxologies  occurring  in  St.  Paul's  Epistles :  "  "  Till  the  ap 
pearing  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  which  in  His  Own  times 


214 

He  will  show,  Who  is  the  Blessed  and  only  Potentate,  the 
King  of  kings,  and  Lord  of  lords,  Who  only  hath  immor 
tality,  dwelling  in  light  unapproachable,  Whom  no  man  hath 
seen,  nor  can  see ;  to  Him  be  honor  and  power  eternal " 
(vi.  15,  16). 

If  the  announcement,  whose  direct  force  is  met  with  capri 
cious  conjectures  about  exclusive  reference  to  our  Lord's 
mediating  Manhood,  is  read  in  connection  with  these  clox- 
ologies  which  mark  the  opening  and  closing  thoughts  of  the 
writer  \vhen  composing  the  Epistle,  there  is  no  legitimate 
escape  from  concluding  the  Apostle  to  have  meant  in  all 
plainness  and  sincerity  just  what  he  said,  when  he  reminded 
Timothy :  there  is  one  God,  and  one  Mediator  between  God 
and  men,  a  man,  Christ  Jesus. 

Mr.  Liddon's  treatment  of  1  Cor.  xv.  28  is  of  a  kind  which 
would  be  denounced  with  unmeasured  severity  if  it  were 
employed  in  heterodox  instead  of  orthodox  advocacy.  Pre 
suming  the  Apostle's  faith  to  have  been  that  which  the 
Church  afterwards  set  forth,  the  natural  sense  of  the  expres 
sion,  the  Son  Himself,  would  be,  the  Divine  Son  Who  is 
"  The  Father's  Equal,  in  that  He  is  partaker  of  His  Nature  ; 
the  Father's  Subordinate,  in  that  the  Equality  is  eternally 
derived."  To  make  the  expression  point  exclusively  to 
Christ's  Sacred  Manhood  is  to  indulge  in  very  easy  but 
perfectly  unwarranted  assumption.  It  points  to  Christ's 
entire  Incarnate  Being,  and  the  connection  in  which  it  stands 
evinces,  as  far  as  words  can  evince,  that  the  Apostle  held 
that  Being  to  occupy  in  relation  to  God  not  only  a  place  of 
economical  orderly  subordination,  but  a  place  of  essential, 
natural  inferiority.  That  our  Lord's  Humanity  is  the  sole 
subject  of  the  objectionable  verb  which  bespeaks  inferiority 
may  be  "  the  opinion  of  St.  Augustine,  St.  Jerome,  Theo- 
doret,"  and,  after  them,  of  a  long  array  of  commentators  who 
have  sacrificed  common  sense  and  consistency  to  a  contro 
versial  purpose.  But  repetition  does  not  change  assertion 
into  proof,  and,  if  the  Apostle  wrote  as  a  reasonable  man  to 
reasonable  men,  he  designated  Christ's  Person  in  Its  com- 


OF   I   COR.    XV.    28.  215 

$ 

pleteness,  and  not  merely  the  enveloping  created  elements, 
which  never  had  an  individual  existence  apart  from  the 
Divine  Personality.  The  mental  confusion  springing  out  of 
theological  definitions  when  they  are  not  aids  to  a  submis 
sively  receptive  faith  is  to  be  seen  in  the  fact  that  a  clear, 
honest,  and  unreserving  thinker,  as  St.  Paul  is  supposed  by 
Protestants  to  have  been,  can  be  imagined  to  have  known 
Christ's  Person  to  be  wholly  Divine,  and  yet  to  have  written, 
in  a  number  of  passages,  as  though  the  Manhood  were,  in 
distinction  from  the  Divinity,  a  Personal  Agent  and  Sub 
ject.  Mr.  Liddon  is  not  altogether  blind  to  the  dilemma, 
and  seeks  immunity  through  jugglings  Avhich  tell  their  OAVH 
tale.  He  starts  boldly  from  a  misinterpreted  text :  "  A  writer 
who  believed  our  Lord  to  be  literally  God  (Rom.  ix.  5)  could 
not  have  supposed  that,  at  the  end  of  His  mediatorial  reign 
as  Man,  a  new  relation  would  be  introduced  between  the 
Persons  of  the  Godhead.  The  subordination  (xara  ra^iv)  of 
the  Son  is  an  eternal  fact  in  the  inner  Being  of  God.  But 
the  visible  subjection  of  His  Humanity  (with  which  His 
Church  is  so  organically  united  as  to  be  called  Christ,  1  Cor. 
xii.  12)  to  the  supremacy  of  God  will  be  realized  at  the  close 
of  the  present  dispensation"  (p.  306).  How  can  Christ  reign 
as  Man  when  he  possesses  no  Personal  Manhood?  And 
what  visible  subjection  can  there  be  of  a  Humanity  linked 
indissolubly  to  Essential  Godhead  ?  unless,  indeed,  Mr.  Lid 
don  will  go  so  far  as  to  affirm  the  Son  Himself  to  be  a  sub 
lime  personification  of  "  the  Church  organically  united  with 
Christ's  Humanity."  No  cleverly  raised  dust  of  verbiage 
can  hide  the  fact  that,  in  the  Apostle's  meaning,  God,  in 
verse  28,  is  the  individual  God  and  Father  to  Whom, 
according  to  verse  24,  the  Son  will  deliver  up  the  Kingdom. 
"Whatever  obscurity  may  surround  St.  Paul's  summarily 
announced  anticipation,  this  much  at  least  is  clear,  —  he  held 
Christ's  dominion  to  be  conferred,  and  returnable,  after  its 
purposes  should  have  been  accomplished,  to  Him  Who  con 
ferred  it :  "  God  hath  put  all  things  under  Him  :  then  cometh 
the  end  when  He  shall  have  delivered  up  the  Kingdom  to 
the  God  and  Father." 


216 

The  uniformly  pervading  conception  which  penetrates  and 
shapes  all  the  New  Testament  representations  of  Christ's 
Royalty  distinctly  reappears.  Christ  is  highly  exalted,  dele 
gated,  divinely  equipped,  and  sustained  by  the  Father,  and 
therefore,  in  His  loftiest  elevation  and  most  exceptional 
capacities,  is  not  God,  or  God's  Equal,  but  God's  Instrument, 
ruling  under  and  for  God.  During  the  Mediatorial  reign  the 
Father  retains  His  singular  and  unapproachable  Sovereignty. 
"  In  saying  all  things  are  put  under  Christ,  it  is  manifest  that 
He  (God)  is  excepted  Who  did  put  all  things  under  Him " 
(ver.  27).  The  notion  of  some  inscrutable  Equality  of  Na 
ture,  combined  with  eternal  derivation  (whatever  that  may 
be)  and  formal  subordination,  is  manifestly  not  what  lay 
behind  and  prompted  the  Apostle's  words,  presuming  always 
his  words  were  designed  to  impart  and  reveal,  and  not,  for 
the  Church's  sake,  to  reserve  and  conceal,  his  mind. 

The  absolute  superiority  of  God,  together  with  the  real  and 
intelligible,  and  not  merely  formal  and  verbal  inferiority  of 
Christ,  are  clearly  implied  in  two  other  passages  of  the  first 
Corinthian  Epistle,  Ye  are  Christ's  and  Christ  is  God's  (iii. 
23).  The  head  of  every  man  is  Christ,  and  the  head  of 
Christ  is  God  (xi.  3). 

The  Unity  of  God  is  incidentally  affirmed  by  St.  Paul 
(Rom.  iii.  30 ;  Gal.  iii.  20)  ;  and  in  Rom.  xvi.  25-27  there  is 
a  form  of  doxology,  sharply  distinguishing  between  Jesus 
Christ,  and  Him  Who  is  able  to  establish  us  according  to  the 
Gospel,  the  Only  Wise  God. 

St.  Paul's  Epistles  contain  the  designation,  five  times  re 
peated  (Rom.  xv.  6 ;  2  Cor.  i.  3 ;  xi.  31 ;  Eph.  i.  3 ;  Col.  i.  3), 
the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  a  designation 
not  easily  explicable  if  St.  Paul  knew  that  Christ  was  Him 
self  God.  The  same  designation  is  found  in  the  writings  of 
another  Apostle  (1  Pet.  i.  3).  St.  Paul  also  speaks  of  The 
God  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Father  of  glory  (Eph.  i. 
17). 

Do  not  the  often  recurring  phrases,  God  the  Father  ;  God 
our  Father  /  our  God  and  Father,  when  taken  together  with 


SIGNIFICANCE   OF   EPH.    V.  22;    GAL.    IV.    14.  217 

the  texts  which  have  in  the  last  few  pages  been  under  con 
sideration,  and  with  the  fact  of  St.  Paul's  never  in  one  single 
passage  calling  Christ  God*  overwhelmingly  denote  the 
Apostle  to  have  known  no  God  but  the  Father,  however 
lofty  his  conceptions  may  have  been  of  Christ's  Person,  dig 
nity,  and  dominion  ? 

And,  further,  can  we,  after  largest  allowance  for  exaggera 
tion,  incidental  to  earnestness  and  rapid  style,  reconcile  with 
the  Apostle's  presumed  faith  in  Christ's  Godhead  the  form 
of  the  injunctions  in  which  he  exhorts  wives  to  obey  their 
husbands?  Could  a  believer  in  the  superlative  claims  of 
Christ's  Godhead  have  written  :  "  Wives,  submit  yourselves 
to  your  own  husbands,  as  to  the  Lord.  For  the  husband  is 
the  head  of  the  wife,  even  as  Christ  is  the  Head  of  the 
Church.  But  as  the  Church  is  subject  to  Christ,  so  let  the 
wives  also  be  to  their  husbands,  in  every  thing  "  ?  (Eph.  v. 
22-24.)  Would  not  reverence  and  sound  discretion  forbid 
Mr.  Liddon,  or  any  other  orthodox  divine,  to  use  such  lan 
guage  ? 

Again,  the  Apostle  reminds  the  Galatian  Christians  how 
they  did  not  despise  him,  but  received  him  as  an  angel  of 
God,  as  Christ  Jesus  (Gal.  iv.  14).  After  every  allowance, 
this  language  must  appear  distasteful  and  unseemly  to  a  mind 
inhabited  by  the  orthodox  faith.  Is  it  likely  St.  Paul  would 
have  used  such  phraseology,  if  he  had  himself  believed,  and 
had  instructed  the  Galatians  to  believe,  "  Christ  Jesus  is  truly 
God "  ?  Assuming  the  Galatians  to  have  been  taught  the 
Lord  Jesus  is  the  Great  God  and  God  blessed  for  ever,  with 
what  respect,  veneration,  adoration,  may  we  imagine  they 

*  I  think  I  am  now  fairly  entitled  to  affirm  this,  notwithstanding  the 
ambiguity  of  Eom.  ix.  5 ;  Tit.  ii.  13.  If  these  texts  could  be  perfectly 
isolated,  grammatical  construction  would  leave  the  question  whether  they 
refer  to  the  Father,  or  to  Jesus  Christ,  open ;  and  the  considerations  aris 
ing  from  habitual  Pauline  thought  and  language  are  conclusively  against 
the  latter  reference.  After  a  survey  of  St.  Paul's  writings,  the  attempt 
to  erect  two  ambiguous  expressions  into  explicit  declarations  of  Christ's 
Godhead,  is  seen  to  be  ridiculous,  unless  we  start  from  some  postulate 
which  removes  the  work  of  interpretation  from  the  hands  of  reason. 


218  CONCLUSIONS   FROM    ST.    PAUL'S 

would  have  received  Him !  Did  they  accord  to  the  Apostle 
a  reception  which,  even  in  the  greatest  heat  of  composition, 
and  the  freest  exaggeration  of  Eastern  rhetoric,  might  be, 
without  palpable  falsehood  and  irreverence,  compared  to  the 
reception  they  would  have  accorded  to  One  Whom  they  held 
to  be  God  Almighty  ? 

Taking  St.  Paul's  teaching  as  a  whole,  and  bringing  to  the 
study  of  it  unprejudiced  rational  investigation,  a  conclusion 
contrary  to  the  doctrine  Mr.  Liddon  advocates  seems  inevit 
able.  The  Bampton  Lectures  do  not,  after  the  manner  of 
some  older  treatises  on  the  same  side  of  the  controversy, 
indulge  freely  in  abuse  of  those  who  differ ;  but  the  bitterness 
which  assumes  denial  of  Christ's  Deity  to  issue  from  enmity 
to  Him  and  His  Gospel,  and  from  a  disposition  to  cavil  at 
and  reject  Scripture  testimony  concerning  Him,  is  not  en 
tirely  absent.  It  is,  however,  as  a  rule,  strangely  misapplied, 
and  comes  with  a  very  ill  grace  from  expositors  whose  dis 
tinctive  tenet  compels  them  habitually  to  do  violence  to  the 
plain  force  of  Scripture  language.  From  the  ground  of  St. 
Paul's  writings,  an  appeal  may  be  justly  made  to  the  honesty, 
intellectual  conscientiousness,  and  common-sense  of  all  Prot 
estants  who,  being  persuaded  the  Apostle  knew,  and  designed 
to  promulgate,  truth  as  it  is. in  Jesus,  claim  him  as  a  witness 
for  the  Divinity  of  Jesus.  If  Mr.  Liddon  ever  preaches  from 
any  of  that  class  of  Pauline  texts  which  are  prima  facie 
adverse  to  the  Church's  dogma,  does  he  not  find  it  needful, 
first  of  all,  to  explain  away  the  apparently  obvious  sense  and 
implication,  and  to  show  "  unreflecting "  hearers  how  the 
Apostle  could  not  have  really  meant  what  he  seems  to  say  ? 
Does  he  not  feel  the  necessity  of  furnishing  from  his  own 
resources  the  information  which  the  Apostle  withholds,  and 
the  judicious  caution  which  the  Apostle  lacks  ?  Would  he, 
without  resorting  to  defensive  and  modifying  explanation, 
employ,  as  the  Apostle  does,  phraseology  which  distinguishes 
sharply  between  the  One  God  and  the  One  Lord?  Would 
he  assert  the  Unity  of  the  Godhead,  using  seemingly  exclu 
sive  and  contrasting  terms,  in  the  very  same  sentences  which 


TEACHING    AS   A   WHOLE.  219 

refer  to  and  name  Jesus  Christ  ?  If  St.  Paul's  language  had 
not  the  sanctity  of  Canonical  authority,  and  were  now  for 
the  first  time  introduced,  would  it  not  be  denounced  as  dan 
gerous,  heretical,  and  even  pointedly  counter  to  the  eccle 
siastical  definitions  of  faith  ?  Is  it  at  all  such  language  as 
might  be  expected  to  issue  from  the  mind  and  pen  of  a  truth 
ful,  and  ordinarily  prudent,  orthodox  man?  Would  any 
orthodox  preacher  be  contented  simply  to  draw  it  together, 
and  recite  it,  without  fencing,  neutralizing  comments  ?  The 
circumstance  that  in  Apostolic  days  the  doctrine  of  Christ's 
Deity  was  a  novel  doctrine,  "  a  great  discovery  to  be  borne 
by  the  capacities  of  Jews  and  heathens,"  did  not  make  its 
lucid  avowal  the  less,  but  the  more  needful,  and  rendered 
every  apparently  conflicting  statement  doubly  perilous.  If 
Mr.  Liddon  were  restricted  to  St.  Paul's  diction,  could  he 
make  the  dogmatic  trumpet  give  a  certain  sound  ?  Could 
he  frame  explicit  unambiguous  inculcation  that  our  Lord  is 
truly  God?  The  exact  defining  phrases  of  ecclesiastical 
theology  are  all  extra-Scriptural,  and  have,  in  truth,  been 
devised  to  supply  the  deficiencies  of  the  Canonical  phrase 
ology.  Not  to  mention  more  scholastic  and  abstract  terms, 
the  appellation  God  the  Son  occurs  nowhere  in  the  Script 
ures.  Yet  given  the  position,  "  Christ  is  indeed.  God,"  and 
that  appellation  arises  by  natural,  inevitable  suggestion,  and 
is  sure  to  be  often  substituted  for  the  Scriptural  Son  of  God, 
which,  if  not  emptied  of  intrinsic  meaning,  cuts  away  the 
attributes  of  eternity  and  independent,  Self-contained  Sub 
sistence. 

Protestants,  who  accept  the  Church's  definitions  respecting 
Christ's  Person,  have  therefore  clearly  no  right  to  upbraid 
their  brethren  who  reject  them.  Men  who  dare  not  repeat, 
without  supplementary  and  guarding  additions,  numerous, 
simple,  and  distinct  Scriptural  utterances ;  men  who  have 
learned  from  experience  the  inadequacy  of  Scripture  terms 
for  the  due  expression  of  an  Orthodox  faith,  lay  themselves 
open  to  well-merited  and  not  stinted  retort,  when  they 
venture  to  charge  their  opponents  with  hostility  to  Gospel 


220        FUNDAMENTAL   FAULTINESS   OF   PROTESTANTISM 

truth,  and  unwillingness  to  be  guided  by  the  Sacred 
Writings. 

The  increasing  body  of  Protestants,  whose  consciences 
a  rational  understanding  of  the  Scriptures  they  diligently 
search  teaches  to  deny  the  proper  Deity  of  Christ,  do  not 
fancy  they  possess  materials  enabling  them  to  differentiate 
with  exactitude  Christ's  pre-incarnate  nature  from  the  nature 
of  all  other  spiritual  intelligences ;  but  they  believe,  on  the 
strength  of  testimony  which  many  of  them,  in  common  with 
their  Orthodox  brethren,  hold  to  be  inspired  and  revealing, 
that  our  Lord's  Being  is,  in  its  every  aspect,  originated,  de 
rived,  produced,  subordinate,  and  dependent ;  and,  therefore, 
indubitably  not  the  Eternal,  Self-existent  Essence,  what 
ever  else  it  may  be.  The  Bible,  they  conceive,  instructs  them 
to  affirm  with  unhesitating  confidence,  "  Christ  is  not  Very 
God ; "  and,  adhering  consistently  to  Protestant  principle, 
they  attach  little  importance  to  the  ecclesiastical  revelation 
which  would  rectify  their  error  by  superseding  their  intellect, 
and  showing  them  how  the  letter  and  manner  of  Scripture 
are  more  mysterious  and  supernatural  than  any  matter  whicli 
Scripture  contains.  The  fundamental  faultiness  of  Protest 
antism  in  relation  to  the  tenets  of  Nicene  theology  is,  doubt 
less,  the  notion  that  the  Word  of  God  in  the  Bible  is  directly 
addressed  to  the  reason  and  the  heart  of  all  who  will  with 
devout  care  study  it.  But  the  Catholic  Churchman  knows 
that  the  Bible  is  the  Church's  Book,  and  that,  withdrawn 
from  the  Church's  light,  its  revelations  cannot  be  read  aright. 
The  reserved  and  concealed  meaning  of  the  inspired  penmen 
the  inspired  Church  draws  forth.  In  the  Spirit  they  speak 
mysteries,  in  the  Spirit  also  the  Church  interprets. 

And  this  rule  of  interpretation  is  singularly  exemplified  in 
the  instance  of  those  particular  texts  of  St.  Paul,  which  are, 
Mr.  Liddon  concedes,  liable  to  be  pressed  with  plausible  effect 
into  the  service  of  erroneous  theories.  Rationally,  according 
to  the  customary  laws  of  thought  and  language,  there  is  no 
excuse  whatever  for  eliminating  the  apparently  plain  sense  of 
St.  Paul's  words,  by  imagining  he  was  anxious  to  insist  on  so 


AS   TO   THE   NICENE   THEOLOGY.  221 

recondite  a  truth  as  the  reality  of  our  Lord's  Manhood,  or 
anxious  duly  to  recognize  a  doctrine  so  hard  to  understand 
and  retain  as  the  derivation  of  Christ's  Sonship  from  the 
Person  of  the  Father. 

The  discourses  of  St.  Paul,  preserved  in  the  Acts  ot  the 
Apostles,  can  hardly  be  pronounced,  even  by  the  most  pene 
trating  of  ecclesiastically  minded  commentators,  to  exhibit 
our  Lord's  Deity  more  convincingly  than  do  the  Pauline 
Epistles ;  but  then  the  Acts,  being  a  Canonical  document,  its 
records  were  moulded  by  the  characteristic  inspiration  of 
secretiveness  and  reserve,  and  may  therefore  contain  no 
samples  of  the  Apostle's  ordinary  manner  of  preaching. 
Starting  from  the  Church's  assurance  that  the  dogma  of  our 
Lord's  Godhead  was  always  a  most  vital,  prominent  part  ot 
the  faith  delivered  to  the  saints,  we  must  surmise  St.  Paul's 
oral  teaching  to  have  been  in  general  marked  by  such  a  vivid 
and  earnest  inculcation  of  the  dogma,  that  his  hearers,  through 
dwelling  upon  it  disproportionately,  were  exposed  to  peril 
from  specious  heresies  which  controverted  the  reality  of 
Christ's  Human  Nature,  and  were  also  liable  to  forget  how  a 
Divine  and  Necessary  Being,  comprised  in  the  Self-existent 
Substance  and  lacking  no  attribute  of  Deity,  was,  neverthe 
less,  derived,  and  relatively  subordinate.  To  the  Protestant 
mind  this  surmise  wears  an  air  of  arbitrariness ;  but  it  aids 
the  Catholic  to  discern  the  descent  through  the  Church  of 
the  grand  truth  of  St.  Paul's  oral  teaching,  while  his  Epistles 
are  seen  to  guard  against  once  attractive  errors,  which  por 
tions  of  his  oral  addresses  were  wrested  to  sanction. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

The  title  Son  as  expressive  of  relationship  to  God.  —  Supposed  indications 
in  the  Old  Testament  of  a  Divine  Sonship  internal  to  the  Being  of 
God.  —  Synoptists'  use  of  the  title  Son  of  God.  —  Mr.  Liddon's 
attempt  to  show  that  the  Son  is  identical  with  the  Logos  or  Word,  and 
that  the  two  descriptions  complete  and  guard  each  other.  —  The 
expanded  title,  Only-begotten  Son.  —  Weakness  of  Mr.  Liddon's  posi 
tion  metaphysically.  —  His  view  of  the  bearing  of  the  miracles  upon 
the  question  of  Christ's  Person.  —  His  deductions  from  the  Self-as 
sertion  exhibited  in  the  first  or  Ethical  stage  of  our  Lord's  teaching. 
—  Difficulties  connected  with  our  Lord's  exposure  to  temptation, 
&c.  —  Mr.  Liddon's  arbitrary,  evasive  treatment  of  a  troublesome 
saying  reported  by  two  Evangelists.  —  Inferences  drawn  from  the 
authoritativeness  of  Christ's  teaching. — Did  He  ratify  the  Penta 
teuch  as  a  whole  ? 

IN  a  note  (p.  10),  illustrating  the  use  of  the  title  sons,  in  the 
Old  Testament,  to  express  relationship  to  God,  Mr.  Liddon 
says : — 

"  The  singular,  My  Son,  The  Son,  is  used  only  in  prophecy 
of  the  Messiah  (Ps.  ii.  7,  12;  and  Acts  xiii.  33;  Heb.  i.  5; 
v.  5),  and  in  what  is  believed  to  have  been  a  Divine  manifes 
tation,  very  probably  of  God  the  Son  (Dan.  iii.  25).  The 
line  of  David  being  the  line  of  the  Messiah,  culminating  in 
the  Messiah,  as  in  David's  One  perfect  Son,  it  was  said  in  a 
lower  sense  of  each  member  of  that  line,  but  in  its  full  sense 
only  of  Messiah,  '  I  will  be  to  Him  a  Father,  and  He  shall  be 
to  Me  a  Son '  (2  Sam.  vii.  14 ;  Heb.  i.  5 ;  Ps.  Ixxxix.  27).  The 
implication  of  the  title  to  collective  Israel  in  Hos.  xi.  1  is 
connected  by  St.  Matthew  (ii.  15)  with  its  deeper  force  as 
used  of  Israel's  One  true  Heir  and  Representative.  Com 
pare,  too,  the  mysterious  intimations  of  Prov.  xxx.  4 ;  Ecclus. 
Ii.  10,  of  a  Divine  Sonship  internal  to  the  Being  of  God." 

These  statements  are  perhaps  worthy  of  a  few  remarks. 
The  Hebrew  being  confessedly  ambiguous,  and  the  Septua- 


TITLE   USON"    IN   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT.  223 

gint  and  Vulgate  Versions,  together  with  some  of  the  best 
modern  Hebraists,  being  against  the  translation,  J\/iss  the 
/Son,  it  is  not  the  part  of  either  sound  scholarship  or  prudence 
to  insist  that  Ps.  ii.  12  refers  to  the  Messiah. 

Until  the  phrases,  God  the  Son,  and  a  Son  of  God,  shall 
have  been  shown  to  be  interchangeable,  there  cannot  be  the 
faintest  reasonable  pretence  for  thinking  a  manifestation  of 
God  the  Son  is  described  in  Dan.  iii.  25.  Does  Mr.  Liddon 
imagine  Nebuchadnezzar,  or  the  writer  who  relates  his  words, 
to  have  had  any  conception  of  such  a  manifestation  ? 

In  quoting  for  a  controversial  purpose  2  Sam.  vii.  14, 
Heb.  i.  5,  it  should  in  fairness  be  remembered  the  exact  force 
of  the  Hebrew,  the  Septuagint,  and  the  New  Testament 
Text,  is:  "I  will  be  to  Him  as  (or  for)  a  Father,  and  He 
shall  be  to  Me  as  (or  for)  a  Son."  Mr.  Liddon  wishes  his 
readers  to  see  an  averment  of  Paternity  and  of  Sonship  of 
the  strictest,  closest  kind,  but  overlooks  the  circumstance 
that  in  the  language,  accurately  rendered,  such  a  sense  does 
not  exist.  Even  in  its  English  shape,  the  text  does  not 
amount  to,  "  I  am  His  Father,  and  He  is  My  Son." 

How  the  full  significance  of  Ps.  Ixxxix.  26,  27,  can  ally 
itself  advantageously  with  the  requirements  of  Mr.  Liddon's 
theme,  I  am  not  at  all  able  to  perceive.  The  words  spoken 
through  the  Psalmist  are,  "  He  shall  cry  unto  Me,  Thou  art 
my  Father,  my  God,  and  the  rock  of  my  salvation.  Also,  I 
will  make  Him  My  First-born,  higher  than  the  kings  of 
the  earth."  (See  likewise  the  preceding  and  subsequent 
contexts.) 

If  the  first  Evangelist  has,  in  his  application  of  Hos.  xi.  1, 
brought  out  the  real  intention  of  that  passage,  the  fact  may 
be  taken  as  an  additional  symptom  of  the  total  incapacity 
of  reason  to  understand  the  utterances  of  inspiration.  The 
prophet's  words  must  be  quite  wrenched  away  from  their 
context,  and  from  all  the  ostensible  train  of  his  thought, 
before  they  will  bear  the  sense  imposed  in  Matt.  ii.  15.*  The 

*  Such  an  application  of  Old  Testament  phraseology  as  that  in  Mat 
thew  ii.  ]  5  is  quite  in  the  style  of  second  and  third  century  Christian 


224 

difference  by  no  means  suffices  to  prove  the  Evangelist 
quoted  either  inexactly,  or  from  a  faulty  text ;  but  the  Sep- 
tuagint  Version,  which  in  all  probability  was  made  from  a 
Hebrew  Text  older  than  that  in  use  when  the  first  Gospel 
was  written,  reads :  out  of  Egypt  I  called  his  children. 

If  intimations  of  a  Divine  Sonship  internal  to  the  Being 
of  God  are  contained  in  Prov.  xxx.  4,  Ecclus.  li.  10,  their 
mysteriousness  is  most  unquestionable ;  but  here,  again,  we 
should  bear  in  mind  how  in  Proverbs  the  Vatican  Septuagint 
reads,  what  is  the  name  of  his  children  f  instead  of  what  is 
his  son! s  name?  The  Alexandrine  MS.  has,  what  is  the  name 
of  his  child  (rexvov)  ? 

A  man  who  is  able  to  discover  in  the  expression,  the 
Lord,  the  Father  of  my  lord,  in  the  last  chapter  of  Eccle- 
siasticus,  an  intimation  of  a  duality  of  Co-equal  Persons  in 
the  Almighty  Nature,  may  be  expected  to  cling  to  his  dis 
covery  with  much  tenacity.  The  expression  is  obscure, 
which,  assuming  the  inspiration  of  the  book,  is,  so  far,  an  argu 
ment  that  it  was  designed  to  contribute  through  the  Church 
to  the  revelation  of  deep  Christian  mystery. 

Mr.  Liddon  contends :  — 

"  In  the  Synoptic  Gospels  Christ  is  called  the  Son  of  God 
in  a  higher  sense  than  the  ethical  or  than  the  theocratic. 
In  the  Old  Testament,  an  anointed  king  or  a  saintly  prophet 
is  a  son  of  God.  Christ  is  not  merely  one  among  many 
sons.  He  is  the  Only,  the  Well-beloved  Son  of  the  Father. 
His  relationship  to  the  Father  is  unshared  by  any  other, 
and  is  absolutely  unique.  It  is  indeed  probable  that  of 

writings,  but  hardly  in  keeping  with  the  generally  superior  caution  and 
insight  of  the  Evangelists.  Is  it  not  due  to  the  Evangelists  that  we 
should  ascribe  any'  manifestly  erroneous  use  of  Old  Testament  expres 
sions,  not  to  them,  but  to  editors  and  transcribers  whose  copyings  were 
anterior  to  the  oldest  Manuscripts  and  Versions  now  extant  ?  That  the 
best  Text  of  the  present  day  faithfully  represents  the  Evangelical  narra 
tives  in  their  first  form,  may  be,  to  Orthodox  apprehensions,  a  wholesome 
belief  for  the  multitude,  but  will  not  commend  itself  to  the  minds  of 
men  who  have  attentively  considered  the  subject,  —  a  subject  about 
which  there  is  either  strange  ignorance,  or  most  conscientious  lying  for 
God,  on  the  part  of  not  a  few  popular  theological  writers. 


AS  USED  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.         225 

our  Lord's  contemporaries  many  applied  to  Him  the  title 
Son  of  God  only  as  an  official  designation  of  the  Messiah ; 
while  others  used  it  to  acknowledge  that  surpassing  and 
perfect  character  which  proclaimed  Jesus  of  Nazareth  to 
be  the  One  Son,  Who  had  appeared  on  earth,  worthily 
showing  forth  the  moral  perfections  of  our  Heavenly  Father. 
But  the  official  and  ethical  senses  of  the  term  are  rooted  in 
a  deeper  sense,  which  St.  Luke  connects  with  it  at  the 
beginning  of  his  Gospel.  '  The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come 
upon  thee,'  so  ran  the  angel-message  to  the  Virgin-mother, 
1  and  the  power  of  the  Highest  shall  overshadow  thee  :  there 
fore  also  that  Holy  Thing  Which  shall  be  born  of  thee  shall 
be  called  the  Son  of  God '  (St.  Luke  i.  35).  This  maybe 
contrasted  with  the  prediction  respecting  St.  John  the  Bap 
tist,  that  he  should  be  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost  even  from 
his  mother's  womb  (i.  15).  St.  John  then  is  in  existence 
before  his  sanctification  by  the  Holy  Spirit;  but  Christ's 
Humanity  Itself  is  formed  by  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Ghost" 
(p.  247). 

The  precise  reason  assigned  in  the  third  Gospel  for  calling 
Christ  the  Son  of  God  is,  that  an  immediate  direct  action  of 
Divine  power  took  the  place  of  God's  customary  working 
through  the  established  laws  of  human  paternity.  Accord 
ing  to  St.  Luke,  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God,  because  the  Al 
mighty,  in  a  miraculous  and  exceptional  way,  caused  His 
conception  in  the  Virgin's  womb.  In  virtue  of  His  miracu 
lously  produced  human  nature,  He  is  in  a  special  manner 
God's  Son.  Yet,  in  his  fifth  Lecture,  a  few  pages  before  the 
passage  last  quoted,  Mr.  Liddon  strenuously  argues  the  Son 
identical  with  the  Logos  or  Word :  — 

"  The  Word  is  also  the  Son.  As  applied  to  Our  Lord,  the 
title  Son  of  God  is  protected  by  epithets  which  sustain  and 
define  its  unique  significance.  In  the  Synoptic  Gospels, 
Christ  is  termed  the  well-beloved  Son.  In  St.  Paul  He  is  God's 
own  Son  (Rom.  viii.  3  and  32).  In  St.  John  He  is  the  Only- 
begotten  Son,  or  simply  the  Only-begotten.  This  last  epithet 
surely  means,  not  merely  that  God  has  no  other  such  Son, 

15 


226  RELATION   OF   THE   TITLES 

but  that  His  Only-begotten  Son  is,  in  virtue  of  this  Sonship, 
a  partaker  of  that  incommunicable  and  imperishable  Essence 
Which  is  sundered  from  all  created  life  by  an  impassable 
chasm.  If  St.  Paul  speaks  of  the  Resurrection  as  manifest 
ing  this  Sonship  to  the  world  (Acts  xiii.  32,  33 ;  Rom.  i.  4 : 
compare,  on  the  other  hand,  Heb.  v.  8),  the  sense  of  the  word 
Only-begotten  remains  in  St.  John,  and  it  is  plainly  defined 
by  its  context  to  relate  to  something  higher  than  any  event 
occurring  in  time,  however  great  or  beneficial  to  the  human 
race.  .  .  .  Each  of  these  expressions,  the  Word,  and  the 
Son,  if  taken  alone,  might  have  led  to  a  fatal  misconception. 
.  .  .  The  bare  metaphors  of  Word  and  Son,  taken  sepa 
rately,  might  lead  divergent  thinkers  to  conceive  of  Him 
to  Whom  they  are  applied,  on  the  one  side  as  an  impersonal 
quality  or  faculty  of  God,  on  the  other,  as  a  concrete  and  per 
sonal,  but  inferior  and  dependent  being.  But  combine  them, 
and  each  corrects  the  possible  misuse  of  the  other.  The 
Logos,  Who  is  also  the  Son,  cannot  be  an  impersonal  and 
abstract  quality ;  since  such  an  expression  as  the  Son  would 
be  utterly  misleading,  unless  it  implied  at  the  very  least  the 
fact  of  a  personal  subsistence  distinct  from  that  of  the  Father. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  Son,  who  is  also  the  Logos,  cannot 
be  of  more  recent  origin  than  the  Father,  since  the  Father 
cannot  be  conceived  of  as  subsisting  without  that  Eternal 
Thought  or  Reason  Which  is  the  Son.  Nor  may  the  Son  be 
deemed  to  be  in  any  respect,  save  in  the  order  of  Divine  sub 
sistence,  inferior  to  the  Father,  since  He  is  identical  with  the 
eternal  intellectual  Life  of  the  Most  High.  Thus  each  meta 
phor  re-enforces,  supplements,  and  protects  the  other.  Taken 
together,  they  exhibit  Christ  before  His  Incarnation  ns  at 
once  personally  distinct  from,  and  yet  equal  with  the  Father ; 
He  is  That  personally  subsisting  and  '  Eternal  Life,  Which 
was  with  the  Father,  and  was  manifested  unto  us'  (1  St. 
Johni.2)."  (Pp.  233-235.) 

With  whatever  ingenuity,  and  clothing  of  graceful  diction, 
this  kind  of  speculation  is  presented,  its  factitious  and 
baseless  character  cannot  be  concealed.  Before  we  can  truth- 


"  SON"    AND   "LOGOS."  227 

fully  allege  the  terms  Word  and  Son  to  be  mutually  sustain 
ing,  supplementary,  and  guarding,  the  former  must  be  shown 
to  suggest  lucid  and  definite  ideas.  Are  not  words  put  for 
things  in  a  very  shallow  and  foolishly  pretentious  way,  when 
the  Personal  Son  is  defined  to  be  "  that  Eternal  Thought  or 
Reason  without  Which  the  Father  cannot  be  conceived  of 
as  subsisting ;  "  and.  again,  is  affirmed  to  be  "  identical  with 
the  Eternal  Intellectual  Life  of  the  Most  High."  If  the 
Father  is  personally  God,  and  the  Son  also  personally  God, 
t\i€;i  clearly  the  Eternal  Thought,  or  Reason,  or  Intellectual 
Life  of  the  Most  High,  is  double.  As  the  case  stands,  the 
designation  Logos  is  so  vague  that  the  pre -conceptions  of  any 
unflinching  dogmatist  or  random  theorist  may  be  thrust  into 
it.  No  hint  is  given  by  the  Evangelist  why  Christ  is  called 
the  Word,  and  Christ  is  not  recorded  to  have  ever  called  Him 
self  by  that  name.*  In  handling  such  a  term,  nothing  can 
be  grasped  by  the  intellect,  and  the  theological  spinner 
draws  either  from  independent  knowledge  or  an  active  imagi 
nation,  the  materials  of  his  web.  The  fact  that  so  much  of 

*  Mr.  Liddon  sees  in  this  fact  an  argument  for  the  accurately  histori 
cal  character  of  the  last  Evangelical  narrative.  "  If  St.  John  had  been 
creating  a  fictitious  Jesus  designed  to  illustrate  a  particular  theosophic 
speculation,  he  would  have  represented  our  Lord  as  announcing  His  Div 
inity  in  the  terms  in  which  it  is  announced  in  the  Prologue  to  the  Gos 
pel."  But  does  this  conclusion  follow  ?  The  Evangelist  may  have  moulded 
and  amplified  selected  facts  and  sayings,  to  suit  an  honestly  entertained 
theory,  and  yet  may  have  felt  himself  debarred  by  existing  beliefs  and 
documents  from  putting  his  own  speculations  explicitly  into  the  mouth  of 
Jesus.  If,  moreover,  we  do  not,  in  submission  to  the  Church,  exclude  all 
really  inquisitive  criticism,  we  have  no  right  to  assume  that  the  matter  of 
the  Fourth  Gospel  generally  is  in  unison  with  its  Prologue  understood 
as  the  majority  of  Christians  understand  it.  Whether  the  work  of  the 
latest  Evangelist  is  a  consistent  whole,  and  whether  its  details  are  recon 
cilable  with  the  Synoptic  records,  are  questions  which  must,  from  the 
Protestant  ground,  be  decided  by  free  and  patient  inquiry.  Our  knowl 
edge  about  the  earliest  forms  of  Christian  literature  is  very  scanty,  and 
we  cannot  extricate  our  slender  materials  from  the  gloom  of  a  dim  twilight. 
We  may,  of  course,  easily  construct  after  the  pattern  of  our  own  fixed 
opinions,  and  weave  scraps  and  fragments  into  an  artificial  and  imposing 
chain  ;  but  our  duty  is  to  pronounce,  with  tolerant  diffidence,  a  verdict 
true,  according  to  such  evidence  as  we  possess. 


228 

the  weight  of  Mr.  Lid  don's  edifice  is  made  to  rest  on  an  epi 
thet,  which  is  applied  to  Christ  only  in  the  first  fourteen 
verses  of  the  Gospel  which  the  Church  pronounces  to  be  St. 
John's,  is  very  significant.  The  Word  of  Life  (1  John  i.  1) 
and  the  Word  of  God  (Revelation  xix.  13)  are  titles  to  which 
it  is  comparatively  easy  to  affix  a  meaning,  • — the  offices  of 
Christ  in  proclaiming  the  doctrines  of  life,  and  the  messages 
of  God,  being  adequately  explanatory.  But  no  thoughtful 
man,  who  is  careful  to  have  ideas  behind  his  words,  will 
venture  to  speak  confidently  about  the  never-repeated  and 
extremely  opaque  expression,  commonly  translated,  the  Word 
was  God.  To  Mr.  Liddon  this  one  expression  is  indispen 
sable,  and  prolific  of  meaning,  the  maxims  of  his  exegesis 
apparently  inculcating,  not  only  that  the  Canonical  docu 
ments  have  a  peculiar  organic  unity,  but  also  that  the  key  to 
vital  doctrine  is  supplie'd  by  the  rarest  and  darkest  phrases 
of  a  single  writer. 

That  the  designation  Son  of  God  is  sufficiently  distinctive 
to  be  an  indication  of  Divinity,  or  to  "  suggest  the  reproduc 
tion  in  the  Son  of  all  qualities  of  the  Father,"  sober  judg 
ment  will  shrink  from  affirming  in  the  face  o  such  texts  as 
Matt.  v.  9,  45  ;  Luke  xx.  36 ;  Rom.  viii.  14,  19 ;  ix.  26.  And 
the  protecting,  sustaining,  defining  epithets,  beloved,  own, 
only-begotten,  to  which  Mr.  Liddon  points,  do  not  help  his 
argument,  to  say  nothing  of  the  fact  that  the  application  of 
the  last  named  to  Christ  is  confined  to  the  Fourth  Gospel 
and  the  First  Epistle  of  John  (John  i.  14,  18;  iii.  16,  18; 
1  John  iv.  9),  documents  in  both  of  which  Christ  is  desig 
nated  the  Son,  and  the  Son  of  God,  with  great  frequency. 
What  is,  upon  every  reasonable  interpretation  of  Scripture 
language,  so  fatally  against  Mr.  Liddon's  dogma,  is  the  con 
stant  employment  of  the  word  Son,  to  denote  our  Lord's 
relationship  to  God.  The  track  of  Old  and  New  Testament 
usage,  along  its  whole  extent,  demonstrates  filial  relationship 
to  the  Almighty  to  have  been  ascribed  to  beloved  and  favored, 
but  created  and  dependent,  beings.  The  very  last  way  of 
teaching  a  Jew  to  esteem  a  particular  personage  in  very  truth 


THE    EPITHET    "  ONLY-BEGOTTEN."  229 

God  would  have  been  to  call  him  Son  of  God.  To  say 
Sonship  implies  identity  of  Nature  is,  moreover,  to  press  the 
loose  analogy  furnished  by  the  conditions  of  human  life  be 
yond  the  limits  which  reverence  and  common  sense  prescribe. 
Neither  in  its  simpler  forms,  nor  in  its  Johannine  expansion, 
only-begotten  Son,  does  the  filial  title  warrant  raids  of  pre 
sumptuous  fancy  into  recesses  of  the  Divine  Nature. 

Mr.  Liddon  leans  on  the  term  only-begotten,  and,  after 
remarking  with  Tholuck,  that  in  Luke  vii.  12;  viii.  42;  ix. 
38 ;  Heb.  xi.  17,*  it  signifies  "  that  which  exists  once  only, 
that  is,  singly  in  its  kind,"  —  he  leaps  to  the  conclusion,  "  God 
has  one  Only  Son  Who  by  Nature  and  necessity  is  His  Son." 
But  this  is  obviously  nothing  better  than  blindly  rash,  not  to 
say  irreverent,  deduction.  The  very  utmost  the  term  can 
indicate  is  that  the  mode  of  Christ's  origination  or  produc 
tion  was,  in  some  sense,  unique,  not  certainly  that  the  Divine 
Nature  includes  arrangements  for  an  ineffable  reproduction, 
doubling,  and  propagation  of  Itself  in  the  entirety  of  Its 
attributes.  And  Mr.  Liddon  must  be  conscious  that,  in 
terpreted  rationally,  and  by  the  light  the  Bible  itself  seems 
to  afford,  the  term  probably  means,  in  any  application  which 
is  not  very  definitely  physical  and  literal,  well-beloved,  specially 
dear.  The  Hebrew  word  corresponding  to  only,  only -begotten, 
is  frequently  rendered,  in  the  Septuagint  Version,  beloved 
(Gen.  xxii.  2,  12,  16;  Jer.  vi.  26;  Amos  viii.  10;  Zech.  xii. 
10;  Prov.  iv.  3).  In  Ps.  xxii.  20,  xxxv.  17,  Fuerst  and 
Gesenius  take  the  word  to  denote  life  or  soul,  life  being  at 
once  most  dear,  and  to  its  possessor  the  only  thing  of  its  kind. 
The  Septuagint  Translators  render,  in  these  two  instances,  my 
only-begotten;  the  Anglican,  my  darling,  with  the  marginal 
alternative  my  only  one.  In  Judges  xi.  34,  and  Ps.  xxv.  16, 
the  Greek  Version  has  only-begotten. 

Looking  at  these  facts,  we  see  there  is  no  firm  ground  for 
the  confident  assurance  Mr.  Liddon  feels  about  the  sense  of 

*  The  only  places,  besides  the  five  previously  referred  to,  in  which 
the  wo|jl  occurs  in  the  New  Testament.  Since  St.  Luke  uses  the  adjec 
tive,  the  fact  of  his  not  applying  it  to  our  Lord  is  the  more  noticeable. 


230  ORTHODOX   USE   OF 

that  adjective  which  is,  in  its  literal  and  primary  meaning, 
only-begotten.  It  may  be  equivalent  to  beloved,  dearest; 
certainly,  Isaac  was  not  in  strictness  Abraham's  only  or  only- 
begotten  son  (Heb.  xi.  17),  but  had  brothers  older  and  younger 
(Gen.  xvi.  15 ;  xxv.  2).  Our  Lord  being  styled  in  the  synopti 
cal  Gospels  the  beloved  Son  (comp.  Col.  i.  13),  the  question 
naturally  arises,  whether  the  epithet  applied  to  Him  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  and  the  First  Epistle  of  John,  is  to  be  under 
stood  in  harmony  with  the  other  Scriptures,  or  regarded  as 
a  supplementary  and  higher  title,  a  step  onwards,  in  the 
progressive  revelation  of  our  Lord's  Person.  On  the  word 
begotten  no  stress  can  be  legitimately  laid,  because  the  very 
writings  which  call  Christ  only-begotten  say  Christians  are 
begotten  of  God.  (John  i.  13 ;  1  John  iii.  9 ;  iv.  7 ;  v.  1,  18.) 
Granting,  however,  that  our  Lord's  Sonship  is  solitary  and 
exceptional,  still  it  is  Sonship,  and  the  reality  of  the  filial  rela 
tion  is,  we  must  confess,  rather  intensified  than  lowered  by  the 
Johannine  epithet.  And  does  not  Sonship,  just  in  proportion 
to  its  reality,  suggest  posteriority,  derivation,  and  some  sort 
of  dependence.  The  difficulty  with  which  Mr.  Liddon  fails 
to  cope  is  the  reconciliation  of  Sonship  with  necessary  Co 
existence,  Co-eternity,  and  equality  of  Attributes.  When  he 
admits,  "The  Son  is  in  the  order  of  Divine  Subsistence  infe 
rior  to  the  Father,"  and  again,  "  From  the  Father,  Christ 
eternally  receives  an  equality  of  life  and  power,  and  there 
fore,  as  being  a  recipient,  He  is  so  far  subordinate  to  the 
Father"  (p.  323),  we  may  justly  challenge  him  to  give  to 
his  words  a  meaning  which  shall  be  intelligible,  and  at  the 
same  time  not  discordant  with  his  dogma.  If  Christ  is  ab 
solutely  God,  we  simply  darken  counsel  by  words  without 
knowledge,  when  we  call  Him  a  recipient,  subordinate,  and 
begotten.  He  has  received  nothing  which  could  have  been 
imparted,  and  nothing  which  could  have  been  withheld.  His 
existence  is  in  no  way  whatever  dependent  on  the  Personal 
Father's  power  and  Will,  but  He  is,  equally  with  the  Father, 
everlastingly  and  necessarily  comprised  in ,  the  Self-existent 
Substance.  The  Divine  Nature  cannot  be  contemplated  as 


"  WORDS   WITHOUT   KNOWLEDGE."  231 

having  ever  existed  without  Him.  But,  when  sameness  of 
Substance,  Co-equality,  Co-eternity,  and  Necessary  existence 
have  been  predicated,  —  recipiency,  derivation,  origination, 
sonship,  begottenness,  inferiority,  are  terms  conspicuously 
inapplicable,  and  divorced  from  every  comprehensible  idea. 
The  employment  of  them  puts  an  end  to  reasoning,  the 
common  ground  of  rational  understanding  being  deserted, 
and  words  no  longer  available  symbols  for  the  conveyance 
of  thought.  As  a  metaphysical  tenet,  the  doctrine  Mr.  Lid- 
don  maintains  necessitates  perfectly  contemptible  shuffling 
and  inanity.  If  the  question  were  pressed,  How  can  Self- 
existent  Being  either  impart  or  derive  "  equality  of  life  and 
power?  "  the  answer  would  be,  the  impartation  and  derivation 
were  eternal,  —  "the  Son  was  generated  eternally."  And  if 
(assuming  the  generation  was  some  actual  process)  we  were 
closely  to  inquire  what  is  meant  by  "  generated  eternally," 
as  distinguished  from  generated  in  time,  the  final  response 
must  be,  —  not  generated  at  all,  in  any  mode  man's  under 
standing  can  conceive  or  human  words  describe.  We  do  not 
cover,  but  rather  lay  bare  the  emptiness  of  our  defining  lan 
guage,  when  we  put  a  procedure  supposed  to  be  real  back 
ward,  and  backward  to  infinity.  The  introduction  of  that 
"unknown  quantity"  Eternity  is,  indeed,  manifestly  only  a 
verbal  refuge  from  the  contradiction  involved  in  a  Sonship 
which  leaves  the  Father  and  the  Son  the  Originator  and 
the  Originated,  enclosed  in  the  same  Unbegun,  Undivided 
Essence,  and  yet  awards  to  each  Personal  Being  and  posses 
sion  of  the  totality  of  the  Divine  Attributes.  The  Orthodox 
enunciation  of  the  Deity  of  God's  Only-begotten  Son  is,  in 
its  metaphysical  phases,  a  hopeless  puzzle,  from  which  merely 
rational  minds  must  always  retreat  in  compassion  and 
despair. 

Convinced  that  a  reasonable  interpretation  of  our  Lord's 
sayings  supports  the  Church's  traditional  faith,  Mr.  Liddon 
declares  boldly :  "  The  Apostles  lived  with  One  Who  asserted 
Himself,  by  implication  and  expressly,  to  be  personally  God  " 
(p.  27'2).  But  for  this  declaration,  as  for  so  many  of  Mr. 


232  CHRIST'S  RECORDED  MIRACLES 

Liddon's  propositions,  there  exists  only  the  slenderest  and 
most  imperfect  basis  —  just  enough  to  excuse  the  adhesion 
of  an  honest  and  strongly  biassed  mind,  trained  from  child 
hood  in  a  particular  school  of  prevalent  Christian  thought,  — 
but  nothing  more.  Arguments  against  Orthodoxy,  resting 
on  similarly  insufficient  grounds,  would  be  righteously  re 
ceived  with  derisive  indignation,  and  be  too  speedily  and 
effectively  refuted  ever  to  reappear. 

Before  entering  upon  "the  very  heart  of  our  great  subject, 
and  penetrating  to  the  inmost  shrine  of  Christian  truth," 
the  question,  namely,  "  what  position  did  Jesus  Christ,  either 
tacitly  or  explicitly,  claim  to  occupy  in  His  intercourse  with 
men?"  Mr.  Liddon  devotes  a  few  pages  to  the  consideration 
of  Christ's  miracles,  in  which  he  discerns  not  merely  eviden 
tial  value,  but  "  physical  and  symbolic  representations  of 
Christ's  redemptive  action  as  the  Divine  Saviour  of  mankind." 
He  not  only  descries  the  more  general  indications  of  redemp 
tive  power,  but,  with  piercing  and  consistent  ecclesiastical 
intuition,  detects  foreshadowings  of  the  central  vitalities  of 
the  Church's  system,  the  Holy  Sacraments. 

"  The  drift  and  meaning  of  such  a  miracle  as  that  in  which 
our  Lord's  EpTipliatha  brought  hearing  and  speech  to  the  deaf 
and  dumb  is  at  once  apparent  when  we  place  it  in  the  light 
of  the  sacrament  of  Baptism  (St.  Mark  vii.  34,  35).  The 
feeding  of  the  five  thousand  is  remarkable  as  the  one  miracle 
which  is  narrated  by  all  the  Evangelists  ;  and  even  the  least 
careful  among  readers  of  the  Gospel  cannot  fail  to  be  struck 
with  the  solemn  actions  which  precede  the  wonder-work,  as 
well  as  by  the  startling  magnificence  of  the  result.  Yet  the 
permanent  significance  of  that  extraordinary  scene  at  Beth- 
saida  Julias  is  never  really  understood  until  our  Lord's  great 
discourse  in  the  synagogue  of  Capernaum,  which  immediately 
follows  it,  is  read  as  the  spiritual  exposition  of  the  physical 
miracle,  which  is  thus  seen  to  be  a  commentary,  palpable  to 
sense,  upon  the  vital  efficacy  of  the  Holy  Communion  :  com 
pare  St.  John  vi.  26-59;  and  observe  the  correspondence 
between  the  actions  described  in  St.  Matt.  xiv.  19,  and  xxvi. 


IN   THEIR   RELATION    TO    HIS    DEITY.  233 

26  "  (p.  157).  Discussion  of  these  views  is  quite  needless, 
they  occur  in  the  Bampton  Lecturer's  argument,  and  I  repro 
duce  them  in  his  own  words. 

No  reasoner  worthy  of  the  name  would  see  in  our  Lord's 
miracles  proofs  of  His  Deity.  Faith  in  His  Deity  no  doubt 
entails  a  most  willing  admission  of  the  reality  of  preternatu 
ral  incidents  in  His  earthly  life;  but  unquestioning  accept 
ance  of  those  incidents,  though  it  accords  with,  certainly 
does  not  entail,  the  belief  that  He  is  God.  Scripture  never 
puts  forward  the  idea  of  His  Godhead  to  account  for  the 
wonders  wrought  by  Him ;  and  to  His  Apostles,  and  other 
earliest  followers,  miraculous  powers  of  vast  extent  were 
given.  Our  Lord's  own  view  of  the  source  of  His  miracu 
lous  powers  may  be  gathered  from  the  records  on  whose  in 
fallible  inspiration  and  minute  accuracy  Mr.  Liddon's  mind 
reposes.  (See  Matt.  xii.  28 ;  Luke  xi.  20 ;  John  x.  25 ;  xi. 
41,  42 ;  xiv.  10,  12.)  How  completely  the  Apostles'  and  first 
disciples'  views  were  in  unison  with  their  Great  Master's 
may  be  learned  from  Acts  ii.  22 ;  x.  38 ;  and  Matt.  ix.  8  ; 
Luke  vii.  16 ;  xxiv.  19 ;  John  iii.  2 ;  vi.  14,  15 ;  ix.  16,  33  ; 
xi.  22.  Our  Lord's  habit  of  prayer  to  God,  attested  by  nu 
merous  passages  in  the  Gospels,  and  particular  expressions  of 
prayer  and  thanksgiving  which  he  is  related  to  have  em 
ployed,  are,  assuredly,  not  in  accordance  with  the  idea  He 
wrought  His  miracles  in  virtue  of  independent,  underived 
energy.  If  He  had  claimed  to  possess  such  energy,  that 
habit  and  those  expressions  would  have  seemed  incongruous, 
but  as  the  case  actually  stands  they  are  weighty  indications 
He  did  not  possess  other  than  conceded  powers.  (See  Matt, 
xiv.  23 ;  Luke  vi.  12 ;  xxii.  31,  32,  and  many  similar  texts : 
Matt.  xi.  25,  26 ;  Luke  x.  21 ;  Matt.  xxvi.  39-43,  53 ;  John 
xii.  27,  28  ;  xiv.  16;  and  xvii.  throughout.)  Yet,  without  dis 
tinctly  affirming  the  inference  of  Christ's  Divinity,  from  the 
miraculous  element  in  the  Gospel  narratives,  Mr.  Liddon 
pertinaciously  suggests  the  inference  may  legitimately  be 
drawn. 

"The  Gospel  narratives  describe  the  Author  of  Christian- 


234 

ity  as  the  Worker  and  the  Subject  of  extra  ordinary  miracles; 
and  these  miracles  are  such  as  to  afford  a  natural  lodgement 
for,  nay,  to  demand  as  their  correlative,  the  doctrine  of  the 
Creed.  That  doctrine  must  be  admitted  to  be,  if  not  the 
divinely  authorized  explanation,  at  least  the  best  intellectual 
conception  and  resume  of  the  evangelical  history.  A  man 
need  not  be  a  believer  in  order  to  admit  that,  in  asserting 
Christ's  Divinity,  we  make  a  fair  translation  of  the  Gospel 
story  into  the  language  of  abstract  thought ;  and  that  we 
have  the  best  key  to  that  story  when  we  see  in  it  the  doc 
trine  that  Christ  is  God,  unfolding  itself  in  a  series  of  occur 
rences  which  on  any  other  supposition  seem  to  wear  an  air 
of  nothing  less  than  legendary  extravagance"  (p.  160). 

Now  if  the  Sacred  Writings  had  failed  to  intimate  that 
Christ's  miracles  were  wrought  by  conferred  power,  and  ii 
they  had  clearly  propounded  the  doctrine  of  His  Divinity, 
and  the  doctrine  had  involved  no  special  difficulties  of  its 
own,  we  might  speak  of  it  as  "  the  best  intellectual  concep 
tion  and  resume,  of  the  evangelical  history."  In  matter  of 
fact,  however,  the  position  that  Christ  is  verily  God  is  not 
only  not  clearly  propounded,  but  is  loaded  with  intrinsic 
difficulties,  and  makes  the  Evangelical  history  teem  with 
perplexities.  Will  Mr.  Liddon  commit  himself  to  an  avowal 
that  the  supernatural  incidents  of  the  Gospel  story  are,  in 
the  light  of  human  experience  and  probability,  more  reasona 
bly  explained  by  the  assumption,  Christ  is  the  Almighty,  than 
by  the  assumption,  the  Almighty  furnished  Christ  with  ex 
ceptional  powers,  and  wrought  through  Him  ?  Is  the  best 
intellectual  conception  that  which,  without  stringent  neces 
sity,  presumes  an  intervention  utterly  new  in  kind,  rather  than 
one  augmented  and  extended  in  degree?  But  criticism  is 
wasted  on  arbitrary  and  audacious  conjectures.  I  leave  my 
readers  to  think  over  them,  and  estimate  them  at  what  they 
are  worth. 

In  the  larger  portion  of  his  Fourth,  and  in  a  few  para 
graphs  about  the  middle  of  his  Fifth  Lecture,  Mr.  Liddon, 
pursuing  his  peculiar  method,  picks  over,  and  deduces  from, 


ETHICAL   TEACHINGS.  235 

our  Lord's  own  teaching  as  represented  in  the  Gospels,  and 
more  especially  in  that  Gospel  which  bears  the  name  of  St. 
John.  He  prudently  avoids  reference  to  any  presumed  order 
in  the  events  and  sayings  of  the  several  histories,  and  con 
tents  himself  with  the  general  assertion  that  there  are,  in 
Christ's  teaching,  two  distinct  stages  or  levels,  the  former  of 
which,  exhibited  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  is  mainly 
ethical,  and  concerned  with  primary,  fundamental,  moral 
truth.  Intellects  and  hearts  which  have  not  irrevocably 
succumbed  to  the  Church's  dogmatic  claims  will  probably 
recognize  in  the  following  eloquent  summary  of  our  Lord's 
wonderful  Sermon  something  more  exalted  and  matured  than 
merely  "  broad  and  deeply  laid  foundations  of  His  spiritual 
edifice  : "  "A  pure  and  loving  heart ;  an  open  and  trustful 
conscience ;  a  freedom  of  communion  with  the  Father  bf 
spirits ;  a  love  of  man  as  man,  the  measure  of  which  is  to  be 
nothing  less  than  a  man's  love  of  himself;  above  all,  a  stern 
determination  at  any  cost  to  be  true,  trim  with  God,  true 
with  men,  true  with  self, —  such  are  the  prerequisites  for  gen 
uine  discipleship  ;  such  the  spiritual  and  subjective  bases  of 
the  new  and  Absolute  Religion;  such  the  moral  material 
of  the  first  stage  of  our  Lord's  teaching"  (p.  163). 

And,  in  this  first  stage  of  our  Lord's  teaching  there  are 
two  characteristics,  the  one  negative  and  the  other  positive, 
both  of  which  Mr.  Liddon  conceives  to  be  at  variance  with 
the  supposition  of  His  being  less  than  Divine.  The  negative 
characteristic  is,  that,  while  in  the  words,  "  be  ye  therefore 
perfect  even  as  your  Father  which  is  in  Heaven  is  perfect " 
(Matt.  v.  48),  our  Lord  proposes  the  highest  standard,  and 
enforces  absolute  morality,  He  makes  no  confession  of  indi 
vidual  shortcomings,  or  of  personal  unworthiness  thus  to 
teach. 

"  Conscious  of  many  shortcomings,  a  human  teacher  must 
at  some  time  relieve  his  natural  sense  of  honesty,  his  funda 
mental  instinct  of  justice,  by  noting  the  discrepancy  be 
tween  his  weak,  imperfect,  perhaps  miserable  self,  and  his 
sublime  and  awful  message.  He  must  draw  a  line,  if  I  may 


236     «  IS   A   PERFECT   MAN   IMPOSSIBLE? 

so  speak,  between  his  official  and  his  personal  self;  and  in 
his  personal  capacity  he  must  honestly,  anxiously,  persist 
ently  associate  himself  with  his  hearers,  as  being  before  God, 
like  each  one  of  themselves,  a  learning,  struggling,  erring 
soul.  But  Jesus  Christ  makes  no  approach  to  such  a  dis 
tinction  between  Himself  and  His  message.  He  bids  men 
be  like  God,  arid  He  gives  not  the  faintest  hint  that  any 
trace  of  unlikeness  to  God  in  Himself  obliges  Him  to  accom 
pany  the  delivery  of  that  precept  with  a  protestation  of  His 
own  personal  unworthiness  "  (p.  163). 

Now,  to  this  artificial  and  vapid  pleading,  it  might  be  a 
sufficient  answer  to  say  that,  admitting  fully  the  substantial 
authenticity  and  practical  sufficiency  of  Christ's  recorded 
sayings,  we  do  not  possess  more  than  digests  and  fragments 
of  His  discourses.  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  can  hardly  be 
imagined  to  have  been  delivered  as  a  continuous  whole,  and 
in  just  the  form  in  which  it  has  descended  to  us.  The 
parables,  and  ot],ier  speeches,  may  also  have  had  verbal  set 
tings  of  which  we  know  nothing,  and  therefore  we  are  in  no 
condition  to  affirm  Christ  may  not  at  some  time  have  used 
language  of  a  kind  to  shoAV  that  His  moral  perfection  did 'not 
result  from  inability  to  sin,  but  from  faithful  devotedness, 
resignation,  and  love,  to  the  Heavenly  Father,  owing  to  whom 
He  lived  (John  vi.  57)  ;  by  Whom  He  was  sent ;  Who  was 
ever  with  Him ;  Whose  Spirit  was  upon  Him,  and  of  Whom 
He  himself  declared,  the  Father  abiding  in  me  doeth  the 
works  (John  xiv.  10). 

Mr.  Liddon  tacitly  assumes  a  perfect  man  to  be  impossible, 
and  the  Creator  unable  to  produce  a  morally  unblemished 
human  creature  whose  sanctity  shall  not  be  stimulated  by  a 
sense  of  sin.  He  takes  for  granted  the  Almighty  would  not, 
and  indeed  could  not,  elevate  His  human  offspring  by  show 
ing  forth  in  one  man  the  true  idea  of  human  nature,  the  pure 
relationship  of  the  human  spirit  to  the  Divine,  —  the  sacred 
possibilities  which  Divine  inspiration  and  fully  realized  fel 
lowship  with  God  can  develop  and  mature.  An  exceptional 
man,  an  extraordinarily  endowed  man,  a  created  Being  who 


SIGNIFICANCE   OF   CHRIST'S   TEMPTATION.  237 

should  be  formed  and  furnished  to  bear  high  commission  and 
office  from  the  Almighty,  and  to  be  the  channel  of  a  world 
wide  and  regenerating  impulse,  —  the  Master,  Example, 
Redeemer,  and  Leader,  in  the  way  to  Sis  Father  and  our 
Father,  His  God  and  our  God,  —  such  a  Being,  with  inveter 
ate  and  reiterated  assumption,  Mr.  Liddon  excludes  from  iVe 
range  of  likelihood,  and  forces  the  alternative  :  if  Christ  is 
not  ordinary,  sinful  man,  he  is  absolute  impeccable  God.  But 
if  we  are  to  approach  the  New  Testament  in  the  capacity  of 
learners,  no  assumption  can  be  more  illegitimate  ;  none  can 
be  less  suggested  or  sustained  by  Canonical  witness;  none 
can  be  more  out  of  keeping  with  recorded  facts  and  aspects 
of  our  Lord's  life,  and  the  avowed  conceptions  of  the  Sacred 
Writers  concerning  Him. 

What  was  the  meaning  of  our  Lord's  temptation,  if,  being 
Very  God  robed  in  a  human  vesture,  he  was  utterly  incapable 
of  sin?  We  can  understand  how  a  celestial  spirit,  or  the 
most  God-possessed  of  mankind,  can  feel  the  force  of  tempta 
tion,  and  be,  in  the  resistance  of  temptation,  a  pattern  to 
other  creatures  liable  to  be  tempted  ;  but  Christ's  temptation 
by  the  Devil  was  a  deceptive  and  paradoxical  farce  if  His 
personal  moral  perfection  was  the  perfection  of  the  Self- 
existent  and  infinitely  Holy  Nature.  The  author  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  who  preaches  that  Christ  is  "  able  to 
succor  us,  having  been  tempted  Himself,  tempted  in  all 
points  like  as  we  are,  yet  without  sin ;  and  that  He  learned 
obedience  by  the  things  which  He  suffered"  (ii.  18 ;  iv.  15  ; 
v.  8) ;  can  be  acquitted  of  gross  irreverence  only  by  being 
convicted  of  ignorance.  Is  it  not  something  beyond  the 
extreme  of  platitude  and  simplicity,  for  a  writer,  if  he  knew 
our  Lord  to  be  absolutely  God,  to  tell  us  that  He  was  not 
only  holy,  but  harmless,  undefiled,  and  separate  from  sinners 
(Heb.  vii.  26)  ? 

Is  St.  Peter's  description  of  Christ's  sinlessness  compatible 
with  a  conscious  and  devout  perception  of  Christ's  Deity  ? 
"  He  did  no  sin,  neither  was  guile  found  in  His  mouth ;  when 
He  was  reviled  He  reviled  not  again,  when  He  suffered  He 


238  CHRIST'S  EXPOSURE  TO  TEMPTATION. 

threatened  not,  but  committed  (Himself,  or  them)  to  Him 
Who  judges  righteously"  (1  Peter  ii.  22,  23).  We  repeat 
this  description  (as  we  do  Scripture  language  in  general 
when  it  is  not  directly  practical  and  devotional),  without 
reflection,  because  it  was  written  by  an  inspired  Apostle ; 
but  is  it  such  as  an  Orthodox  believer  could  spontaneously 
employ  ? 

And  if  the  force  which  initiated  and  upheld  the  holiness 
manifested  through  our  Lord's  human  garb  was  the  force  of 
Essential,  Personal  Godhead,  what  was  the  meaning  of  His 
earnest  prayer,  "  Father,  if  Thou  be  willing,  remove  this  cup 
from  me ;  nevertheless  not  my  will,  but  Thine  be  done "  ? 
(Luke  xxii.  42-44;  Matt.  xxvi.  39-44;  Mark  xiv.  35-39.) 
What  veritable,  honest  import  was  there  in  the  cry  from  the 
Cross :  "  My  God,  My  God,  why  hast  Thou  forsaken  me  ?  " 
(Matt,  xxvii.  46;  Mark  xv.  34),  if  "in  Jesus  the  place  of  any 
created  individuality  at  the  root  of  all  thought  and  feeling 
and  will  is  supplied  by  the  Person  of  the  Eternal  Word," 
Who  is  in  very  deed  God,  lacking  no  attribute  of  Deity  ? 
However  craving  may  be  our  anxiety  to  show  that  the  Gos 
pels  teach  what  the  Catholic  Church  has  taught,  is  it  fair 
and  truthful  to  empty  this  language  of  its  natural  suggestions 
and  rational  significance?  Granting,  for  argument's  sake, 
our  Lord  can  be  reasonably  understood  to  have  had,  as  the 
Church  has  decreed,  a  human  will  without  a  human  person, 
yet  what  was  that  will  as  a  conflicting  power  in  presence  of 
the  boundless  energy  of  the  Will  of  the  Divine  Personality  ? 
How  could  the  struggles  of  human  fears,  human  weakness, 
and  human  volition,  produce  in  a  Co-equal  Person  of  the 
Eternal  Uncreated  Essence  "  the  prayers  and  supplications, 
the  strong  crying  and  tears  "  (Heb.  v.  7),  oifered  up  in  the 
garden  of  Gethsemane?  Why,  too,  does  an  Evangelist 
relate  the  appearance  of  an  angel  from  Heaven  strengthen 
ing  Christ,  in  his  hour  of  agony  (Luke  xxii.  43),  if  in  Christ 
an  impersonal  Humanity  clad  Personal,  Self-existing  Omnip 
otence  ?  Something  more  than  a  string  of  glib  and  fluent 
assertions  concerning  the  explicitness,  variety,  and  vividness 


HIS    SINLESSNESS    NOT   IMPARTED.  239 

of  the  testimony  borne  by  Scripture  and  the  Church  to  the 
reality  and  truth  of  our  Lord's  Manhood,  is  necessary  before 
any  impartially  reflecting  mind  can  feel  that  these  questions 
are  properly  met.  It  is  easy  to  say,  the  subject  is  mysterious 
and  many-sided  (in  the  Church's  view  it  is  most  emphatically 
so),  but  the  point  as  to  which  Protestants  require  to  be 
assured  is,  that  some  sides  and  mysteries  are  not  of  purely 
human  manufacture.  Before  we  can  justly  infer  Christ's 
freedom  from  sin  to  have  resulted  from  intrinsic,  infinite 
holiness  of  Being,  we  must  at  the  least  correct  the  Synoptic 
narratives,  and  deny  that  our  Lord  put  on  appearances  which 
were  false,  and  uttered  words  which  could  have  no  rational 
meaning.  Suppose  Him  to  have  been  in  His  Own  Person 
the  Father's  Equal,  and  possessed  of  the  Divine  attributes 
in  their  entirety,  what  is  signified  by  the  Father's  forsaking 
Him ;  and,  if  such  desertion  had  been  possible,  what  differ 
ence  could  it  have  made?  But  suppose  Him  to  have  been 
the  offspring  of  the  Father's  Will  and  Power,  and  Wisdom, 
and  to  have  been  dependent  on  the  Father,  then,  though 
mystery  may  shroud  the  details  of  His  Being,  His  prayers 
and  cry  upon  the  Cross  are  seen  to  be  natural,  and  full  of 
appropriate,  pathetic  meaning. 

If,  therefore,  we  had  the  right  (as  we  have  not)  to 
assume  that  Christ  never  ascribed  His  sinlessness  to  imparted 
strength,  still  the  indirect  evidence  afforded  by  His  tempta 
tions,  His  prayers,  and  His  explicitly  proclaimed  reception  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  would  enjoin  the  inference  that  His  holiness, 
like  His  miracles,  followed  from  the  anointing  and  gifts  of 
God.  The  difficulties  attending  this  aspect  of  the  Church's 
theory  are  handled,  without  being  at  all  relieved,  in  assevera 
tions  on  the  "  consistency  of  our  Lord's  real  Human  Will  with 
the  Impersonality  of  His  Manhood.'' 

"The  regenerate  man's  lower  nature  is  not  a  distinct  per 
son,  yet  it  has  what  is  almost  a  distinct  will,  and  what  is  thus 
a  shadow  of  the  Created  Will  which  Christ  assumed  along 
with  His  Human  Nature.  Of  course  in  the  Incarnate 
Christ,  the  Human  Will,  although  a  proper  principle  of 


240  HARMONY    OF    CHRIST'S   WILL. 

action,  was  not,  could  not  be,  in  other  than  the  most  abso 
lute  harmony  with  the  Will  of  God.  Christ's  sinlessness  is 
the  historical  expression  of  this  harmony.  The  Human  Will 
of  Christ  corresponded  to  the  Eternal  Will  with  unvarying 
accuracy ;  because  in  point  of  fact  God,  Incarnate  in  Christ, 
willed  each  volition  of  Christ's  Human  Will.  Christ's  Human 
Will  then  had  a  distinct  existence,  yet  Its  free  volitions  were 
but  the  earthly  echoes  of  the  Will  of  the  All-holy.  At  the 
Temptation,  It  was  confronted  with  the  personal  principle  of 
evil ;  but  the  Tempter  without  was  seconded  by  no  pulse  of 
sympathy  within.  The  Human  Will  of  Christ  was  incapa 
ble  of  willing  evil.  In  Gethsemane  It  was  thrown  forward 
into  strong  relief  as  Jesus  bent  to  accept  the  chalice  of  suf 
fering  from  which  H  s  Human  sensitiveness  could  not  but 
shrink.  But  from  the  first  It  was  controlled  by  the  Divine 
Will  to  which  It  is  indissolubly  united,  just  as,  if  we  may 
use  the  comparison  in  a  holy  man,  pnssion  and  impulse  are 
brought  entirely  under  the  empire  of  reason  and  conscience. 
As  God  and  Man,  our  Lord  has  two  Wills ;  but  the  Divine 
Will  originates  and  rules  His  action ;  the  Human  Will  is  bu-t 
the  docile  servant  of  that  Will  of  God  which  has  its  seat 
in  Christ's  Divine  and  Eternal  Person.  Here,  indeed,  we 
touch  upon  the  line  at  which  revealed  truth  shades  off  into 
inaccessible  mystery  "  (p.  262). 

In  his  First  Lecture,  Mr.  Liddon  appears  to  see  the  ex 
planation  of  Christ's  freedom  from  sin  in  His  miraculous 
conception :  "  Christ's  Manhood  is  not  unreal,  because  It  is 
sinless ;  because  the  entail  of  any  taint  of  transmitted  sin  is 
in  Him  cut  off  by  a  supernatural  birth  of  a  Virgin  Mother ; " 
and,  even  in  his  sweeping  and  rapid  deduction  from  totally 
insufficient  materials,  though  the  impression  he  is  aiming  to 
produce  is  unmistakably  manifest,  he  has,  notwithstanding, 
enough  of  discreet  caution  left,  to  be  content  with  the 
expressed  conclusion,  "  This  consciousness  of  an  absolute 
sinlessness  in  such  a  Soul  as  that  of  Jesus  Christ  points  to  a 
moral  elevation  unknown  to  our  actual*  human  experience. 
It  is,  at  the  very  least,  suggestive  of  a  relation  to  the  Per- 


WITH   THE   WILL   OF   GOD.  241 

feet  Moral  Being  altogether  unique  in  human  history" 
(p.  166). 

But  is  there  not  a  saying  of  Christ's  reported  by  two  Evan 
gelists,*  which  is,  when  fairly  interpreted,  a  disclaimer  of 
absolute,  independent  perfection?  (Mark  x.  17,  18;  Luke 
xviii.  18,  19.)  When  called  Good  Master,  Jesus  answered, 
Why  callest  thou  me  good?  none  is  good  except  One,  that  is 
God  Are  not  these  words,  in  their  simple,  natural  meaning, 
the  meaning  in  which  those  who  heard  must  have  apprehended 
them,  an  assertion  clearly  discriminating  between  Christ  and 
God,  and  announcing  goodness  in  its  highest  and  widest 
sense  to  be  predicable  of  none  except  the  One  infinitely  good 
God  ?  Mr.  Liddon  thrice  refers  to  these  words  of  our  Lord, 
and  each  time  obtrudes  a  most  arbitrary  and  baseless  exposi 
tion,  constructed  on  purpose  to  parry  the  plain  force  of  lan 
guage.  In  a  note  to  his  First  Lecture,  he  remarks,  Christ 
"  is  not  denying  that  He  is  good ;  but  He  insists  that  none 
should  call  Him  so  who  did  not  believe  Him  to  be  God." 
In  his  Fourth  Lecture,  he  couples  the  saying  in  question 
with  the  exposure  of  unreality  and  self-deception.  "  A  dis 
ciple  addresses  Him  as  Good  blaster.  The  address  was  in 
itself  sufficiently  justifiable,  but  our  Lord  observed  that  the 
speaker  had  used  it  in  an  unreal  and  conventional  manner. 
In  order  to  mark  His  displeasure,  He  sharply  asked,  '  Why 
callest  thou  me  good  ?  There  is  none  good  but  One,  that  is 
God.' "  The  Seventh  Lecture  presents  again  the  same 
choice  evasion :  "  The  rebuke  to  the  rich  young  man  im 
plies  not  that  Jesus  Himself  had  no  real  claim  to  be  called 
Good  Master,  but  that  such  a  title,  in  the  mouth  of  the  per 
son  before  Him,  was  an  unmeaning  compliment." 

These  repeated  references  betray  a  solicitude  to  provide 
readers  with  a  soothing  interpretation  of  a  troublesome  text, 

*  I  omit  reference  to  Matt.  xix.  17,  on  account  of  the  variety  of  read 
ing  in  good  MSS.  The  true  text  there  very  possibly  is,  Why  askest 
thou  me  concerning  ivhat  is  good?  There  is  One  Who  is  good.  But  if y  &c. 
For  another  noticeable  affirmation  of  the  Divine  Unity,  see  Mark  xii. 
29-34. 

16 


242          CHRIST'S  REFUSAL  TO  BE  CALLED  GOOD. 

but  what  reasonable  extenuation  is  there  for  the  manner  in 
which  Mr.  Liddon  strives  to  shut  out  the  inference  that 
offends  him?  Doubtless,  our  Lord  does  not  repudiate  His 
own  claims  to  real  moral  goodness ;  but  He  does,  by  the 
plainest  implication,  disown  the  possession  of  that  particular 
kind  of  goodness  which  He  ascribes  to  the  One  God.  His 
meaning,  as  determined  by  the  demands  of  dogma,  and  the 
light  of  ecclesiastical  inspiration,  I  do  not  scrutinize  ;  but,  as 
seen  by  the  light  of  common  intelligence  and  reason,  His 
language  seems  necessarily  to  suggest :  He  is  not  God,  and 
is  not  good  with  the  self-originated,  Self-sustained,  Infinite 
Goodness  which  belongs  to  God. 

What  supposition  can  be,  to  the  eye  of  reason,  more 
thoroughly  unfounded  and  capricious  than  the  supposition  of 
Christ's  words  being  a  covert  requisition  for  faith  in  His  Own 
Godhead  ?  He  points  from  Himself  to  God.  And,  for  lay 
ing  an  expository  emphasis  on  thou,  there  is  no  semblance 
of  decent  pretext,  either  in  the  structure  of  the  sentence,  or 
in  the  context.  The  pronoun  thou  is  not  expressed  in  the 
original,  otherwise  than  through  the  inflection  of  the  verb  — 
a  strong  indication  no  special  stress  upon  it  was  designed. 
The  customary  mode  of  marking  emphasis  is  the  separate  ex 
pression  of  the  pronoun,  and  examples  of  emphasis  and  sup 
pressed  antithesis,  thus  marked,  are  familiar  to  every  student 
of  Greek  Testament  grammar.  (See  Winer,  Sec.  xxii.  6.) 
The  really  emphatic  word  is,  by  every  rule  of  probability,  the 
pronoun  'me,  and  the  antithesis  is  between  Christ's  goodness 
and  God's.  That  the  young  ruler's  address  was  unreal,  con 
ventional,  and  the  utterance  of  unmeaning  compliment,  is 
exactly  the  reverse  of  the  conclusion  deducible  from  St. 
Mark's  record  that,  Jesus,  beholding  him,  loved  him  ;  and  from 
the  fact  that  he  could  not,  without  being  very  sorrowful, 
neglect  to  comply  with  Christ's  requirements. 

The  other,  or  positive  characteristic  of  the  first  stage  of 
Christ's  teaching  consists  in  its  tone  of  authority,  and  in  the 
strongly  marked  contrast  between  His  attitude  and  that  of 
the  ordinary  expounders  of  the  Jewish  Code :  "  He  taught 


HIS  TONE  OF  AUTHORITY  AS  TEACHER.      243 

the  people  as  one  having  authority  to  teach,  and  not  as  their 
Scribes  "  (Matt.  vii.  29). 

"  He  takes  up  instinctively  a  higher  position  than  He  assigns 
to  any  who  had  preceded  Him  in  Israel.  He  passes  in  review, 
and  accepts  or  abrogates,  not  merely  the  traditional  doctrines 
of  the  Jewish  Schools,  but  the  Mosaic  law  itself.  His  style 
runs  thus :  '  It  was  said  to  them  of  old  time,  .  .  .  but  I  say 
unto  you'  (Matt.  v.  21,  and  other  verses).  .  .  .  The  prophets 
always  appealed  to  a  higher  sanction  :  the  prophetic  argu 
ment  addressed  to  the  conscience  of  Israel  was  ever,  '  Thus 
saith  the  Lord.'  How  significant,  how  full  of  import  as  to 
His  consciousness  respecting  Himself  is  our  Lord's  substitute, 
1  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you.'  What  prophet  ever  set 
himself  above  the  great  Legislator,  above  the  Law  written  by 
the  finger  of  God  on  Sinai  ?  What  prophet  ever  undertook 
to  ratify  the  Pentateuch  as  a  whole,  to  contrast  his  own 
higher  morality  with  some  of  its  precepts  in  detail,  to  imply 
even  remotely  that  he  was  competent  to  revise  that  which 
every  Israelite  knew  to  be  the  handiwork  of  God  ?  What 
prophet  ever  thus  implicitly  placed  himself  on  a  line  of 
equality,  not  with  Moses,  not  with  Abraham,  but  with  the 
Lord  God  Himself?  So  momentous  a  claim  requires  expla 
nation  if  the  claimant  be  only  human.  This  impersonation 
of  the  source  of  moral  law  must  rest  upon  some  basis :  what 
is  the  basis  on  which  it  rests?"  (p.  167). 

As  to  the  authoritative  manner  of  Christ's  teaching,  the 
dignity  of  His  character,  and  office,  and  endowments,  as  the 
Anointed  and  Messenger  of  God,  quite  sufficiently  explains 
it,  without  resorting  to  the  hypothesis  that  he  is  Himself 
God.  The  speeches  ascribed  to  our  Lord  in  the  Fourth 
Gospel  disclose  a  point  of  view  widely  different  from  Mr. 
Liddon's,  while  they  account  for  the  didactic  tone  which  he 
misinterprets.  "  My  doctrine  is  not  mine,  but  His  That  sent 
Me.  If  any  one  wishes  to  do  His  Will,  he  shall  know  of  the 
doctrine  whether  it  be  of  God,  or  whether  I  speak  from 
myself"  (John  vii.  16,  17).  "I  do  nothing  from  myself;  but, 
as  the  Father  taught  me,  I  speak  these  things.  Ye  seek  to 


244          CHRIST'S  CLAIM  TO  REVISE  AND  RATIFY 

kill  me,  a  man  that  hath  told  you  the  truth,  which  I  have 
heard  from  God"  (viii.  28,  40).  "I  have  not  spoken  of 
myself;  but  the  Father  Who  sent  me,  He  has  given  me  a 
commandment  what  I  shall  say,  and  what  I  shall  speak; 
whatsoever  I  speak,  therefore,  as  the  Father  has  said  unto  me, 
so  I  speak"  (xii.  49,  50).  "All  things  which  I  have  heard 
from  my  Father,  I  have  made  known  unto  you"  (xv.  15). 
Other  statements  of  similar  force  might  be  quoted  from  the 
Gospel,  in  which  Orthodox  theologians  imagine  there  is  a 
consistent  presentation  of  the  Word  as  the  personal  Christ, 
and  as  being,  in  the  full  and  absolute  sense,  God ;  but  these 
are  enough  to  show  the  gratuitousness  of  Mr.  Liddon's  infer 
ences  from  the  mode  in  which  Jesus  Christ  delivered  His 
precepts. 

But  with  no  guide  except  the  contents  of  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount,  the  straining,  perversion,  and  confusion  involved 
in  Mr.  Liddon's  reasoning  are  easily  seen.  Giving  him,  as  his 
argument  requires,  the  benefit  of  the  doubtful  translation, 
"to  them  of  old  time,"  what  does  he  conceive  Christ  to  have 
accepted,  what  to  have  abrogated?  In  referring  to  some  of 
the  Ten  Commandments,  was  our  Lord's  object  to  show 
they  were  inherently  wrong  and  defective,  or  that  Jewish 
legislators  had  been  for  centuries  engrafting  upon  them 
unspiritual,  narrowing,  and  corrupting  interpretations?  If 
His  teaching  was  aimed  against  Rabbinical  misconceptions 
and  falsehoods ;  if  He  designed  only  to  correct  and  counter 
mand  the  superimposed  blunders  of  human  traditions,  then, 
certainly,  He  neither  "  set  Himself  above  the  Law  written  by 
the  finger  of  God  on  Sinai,"  nor  "  placed  Himself  on  a  line 
of  equality  with  the  Lord  God  Himself,"  and  the  whole  form 
of  His  sayings  betokens  Him  to  have  been  dealing  with  the 
prescriptive  explanations  of  men,  and  not  with  the  eternal 
principles  of  rectitude,  which  the  Commandments,  rightly 
understood,  embodied.  His  meaning  was  not  antithetical 
and  annulling,  —  "  God  taught  them  of  old  time,  but  I  teach 
you,"  and,  if  His  meaning  was  not  this,  what  "  impersona 
tion7"  was  there  of  "  the  source  of  moral  law,"  and  what 


OLD  TESTAMENT  TEACHING.  245 

validity  is  there  in  Mr.  Liddon's  reasoning?  Christ,  no 
*doubt,  opposed  His  own  precepts  to  a  long-current  mass  of 
legislation  and  commentary.  In  Matt.  v.  22,  28,  32,  34,  39, 
44,  the  I  is,  as  the  Greek  and  context  indicate,  antithetical 
and  emphatic,  but  there  is,  probably,  a  yet  more  pointed 
antithesis  between  the  men  of  earlier  generations  who  went 
no  deeper  than  the  letter,  and  those  whom  Christ  was  teach 
ing  to  read  the  spirit  of  all  injunctions  truly  Divine.  It  was 
said  to  them  of  old  time,  but  I  say  to  you.  One  section 
of  His  discourse  (Matt.  v.  39-42)  seems  to  have  a  special 
adaptation  to  the  relations  in  which  the  Jews  stood  to  their 
Roman  conquerors. 

Mr.  Liddon  was  too  eager  to  be  duly  observant  when  he 
connected  the  formula  "  Verily,  verily,  Zsay  unto  you,"  with 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  The  doubling  of  the  asseverative 
word  in  our  Lord's  Discourses  is  peculiar  to  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  and  when,  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  the  word  is 
used  singly,  it,  and  not  the  unexpressed  personal  pronoun,  is 
evidently  intended  to  carry  the  stress  (Matt.  v.  18,  26;  vi.  2, 
5,  16).  I  may  add  that,  in  the  whole  range  of  instances 
(between  seventy  and  eighty)  in  which  the  single  or  dupli 
cate  verily  occurs  joined  with  I  say  unto  you,  there  is  riot 
one  where  the  pronoun  Tis  separately  expressed,  or  designed 
to  be  emphatic. 

Whence  is  evidence  producible  for  the  innuendo  that  Christ 
undertook  to  ratify  the  Pentateuch  as  a  whole,  or  that  He 
put  the  stamp  of  His  approval  on  the  notion  of  its  being,  in 
its  entirety,  the  handiwork  of  God  ?  We  know  how  in  His 
judgment  all  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  hang  upon  the  two 
great  commands,  to  love  God  supremely,  and  to  love  our 
neighbors  as  ourselves  (Matt.  xxii.  37-40 ;  Mark  xii.  29-34 ; 
compare  Luke  x.  25-28).  Can  any  system  of  exegesis,  pre 
tending  to  be  rational  and  legitimate,  gather  under  these 
commands  either  the  letter  or  the  spirit  of  the  unsifted  mass 
of  Pentateuchal  enactments  ?  Does  not  Christ  Himself  con 
trast  a  permission  given  in  the  Mosaic  statutes  (Deut.  xxiv. 
1)  with  the  law  and  purpose  of  God  expressed  in  the  consti- 


246  ALL   OF   SCRIPTURE   NOT   GOD'S   WORD. 

tution  of  human  nature?  (Matt.  xix.  4-8;  Mark  x.  4-9.) 
Was  the  maxim,  Thou  shall  hate  thine  enemy  (Matt.  v.  43),* 
a  precept  of  Jehovah,  because  it  unavoidably  sprang  out  of, 
if  it  was  not  formally  laid  down  in,  passages  of  the  Penta 
teuch  (see  Exodus  xxxiv.  12 ;  Dent.  vii.  2 ;  xxiii.  3-6 ;  xxv. 
17-19)  ?  Can  we  really  receive  into  our  souls  the  inesti 
mable  light  which  the  Bible  sheds  on  the  Divine  Nature  and 
character,  and  then  believe  Exodus  xxi.  20,  21,  xxxii.  9,  10, 
to  be  in  any  sense  God's  words  ;  or  the  entire  body  of  civil 
and  ceremonial  rules  and  injunctions  contained  in  the  Penta 
teuch  to  be,  without  exception,  His  handiwork  ?  If  we  can 
not,  are  we  not  acting  unfaithfully,  and  dishonoring  our 
Heavenly  Father's  Adorable  Name,  when  either  in  peevish 
anger  and  alarm,  or  in  the  selfish  supineness  of  lazy  acquies 
cence,  we  repeat,  and  endeavor  to  propagate  among  the  sim 
ple,  our  hobbling  crotchet :  every  sentence  of  the  Bible  is 
identical  with  the  Word  of  God. 


CHAPTER   IX. 

Mr.  Liddon's  view  of  the  second  stage  of  our  Lord's  public  teaching 
depends  almost  entirely  on  materials  peculiar  to  the  Fourth  Gospel. 
—  These  materials  discussed  in  detail,  and  shown  neither  to  warrant 
Mr.  Liddon's  deductions,  nor  to  contain  the  presumed  dogmatic 
revelations  of  Christ's  Co-equality  and  Essential  Oneness  with  the 
Father.  —  No  consciousness  of  Eternal  Being  is  unveiled  in  John  viii. 
58,  and  there  is  no  justification  for  coupling  that  text  with  Exodus 
iii.  14. 

FOR  his  view  of  the  second  stage  of  our  Lord's  public 
teaching,  Mr.  Liddon  depends  almost  exclusively  on  state 
ments  attributed  to  Christ  in  the  "  Gospel  according  to 
John ; "  taking  for  granted  these  statements  are  really 
Christ's,  and  reported  by  the  Evangelist  with  verbal  exacti 
tude.  The  great  characteristic  of  this  stage  he  considers  to 
be  self  assertion,  and  his  argument  is  framed  to  sustain  the 
hypothesis,  that  our  Lord's  pretensions  were  so  enormous, 
His  self-assertion  so  energetic,  comprehensive,  and  persistent, 
as  to  reduce  us  to  the  dilemma  of  either  confessing  His  God 
head,  or  denying  His  possession  of  ordinary  moral  virtues. 

The  evidence  from  which  this  dilemma  is  extracted  begins 
with  a  mosaic  composed  of  detached  fragmentary  sayings, 
arranged  without  regard  to  context,  and  in  neglect  of  every 
thing  but  the  advocacy  of  a  foregone  conclusion.  And  these 
artificially  clustered  fragments  are  dilated  and  amplified  by 
paraphrastic  touches,  lest  readers  should  fail  to  instil  due 
meaning  into  the  brief,  metaphorical,  undefined,  and  abstract 
terms  of  the  original. 

We  are  reminded,  Christ  "  speaks  of  Himself  as  the  Light 
of  a  darkened  world"  (John  viii.  12;  see  also  ix.  5 ;  xii.  46), 


248  FORMS  OF  CHRIST'S  SELF-ASSERTION. 

but  we  are  not  reminded,  He  applies  precisely  the  same 
description  to  His  disciples  (Matt.  v.  14).* 

The  text,  "  I  am  the  Way,  and  the  Truth,  and  the  Life,  no 
man  cometh  unto  the  Father  but  by  me  "  (John  xiv.  6),  is  not 
only  inflated  as  preconceptions  dictate,  but  torn  asunder  in 
order  that  it  may  be  the  more  effectively  manipulated.  The 
final  clause,  being  a  broad  practical  explanation  of  the  pre 
ceding  epithets,  ought  not  to  be  dissociated  from  them ;  and 
there  is,  to  most  minds,  a  great  difficulty  in  perceiving  how 
the  suggestion  that  Christ  is  God  can  be  contained  in  the  fact 
that  He  is  our  Conductor  to  God.  In  the  same  discourse, 
also,  only  five  verses  previously,  our  Lord  is  made  to  distin 
guish  himself  from  God,  when  demanding  faith  in  Himself 
as  God's  Messenger :  "  Ye  believe  in  God,  believe  also  in 
me ; "  words  which  Mr.  Licldon  paraphrases :  "  He  encour 
ages  men  to  trust  in  Him  as  they  trust  in  God,"  but  which, 
clearly,  ought  to  be  read  by  the  light  of  the  statements  : 
"  The  words  that  I  speak  unto  you  I  speak  not  of  myself; 
the  word  which  ye  hear  is  not  mine,  but  the  Father's  Who 
sent  Me  "  (verses  10  and  24)  ;  "  this  is  life  eternal,  that  they 
may  know  Thee,  the  Only  True  God,  and  Jesus  Christ  whom 
Thou  hast  sent"  (xvii.  3). 

"  Life  is  resident  in  Him  in  virtue  of  an  undefined  and  eter 
nal  communication  of  it  from  the  Father"  (John  v.  26).  Life, 
in  the  passage  referred  to,  is  far  more  probably  the  power 
of  distributing  spiritual  and  eternal  life  to  mankind.  The 
Father,  the  sole  primary  Source  and  Giver  of  this  life,  has 
granted  to  the  Son  also  to  be  a  source  and  giver.  But, 
admitting  the  other  interpretation,  the  communication  of 
the  life  is  not  said  to  have  been  eternal,  and  is  defined  in 
this  important  particular;  it  is  a  concession  and  gift,  the 
Father  hath  given  to  the  Son,  —  and,  as  a  gift,  obliterates  the 
ideas  of  Co-equality  and  Self-existence.  In  the  very  same 

*  If  our  Lord  had  said,  I  am  the  salt  of  the  earth,  the  properties  and 
effects  of  salt  would,  doubtless,  have  been  thought  to  betoken  how  in 
applicable  the  metaphor  was  to  a  creature,  how  exclusively  suited  to  the 
Omnipresent  and  All-preserving  Creator. 


FORMS  OF  CHRIST'S  SELF-ASSERTION.  249 

chapter  too  (verse  44),  Christ  is  represented  as  speaking  of 
the  only  God,  an  exclusive  designation  which  the  English 
Version  mistranslates  God  only.  In  the  following  chapter 
(vi.  57),  the  sustenance  of  our  Lord's  life  by  the  Father  is 
acknowledged  in  a  very  unequivocal  way :  "  As  the  living 
Father  hath  sent  me,  and  I  live  by  the  Father,  so  he  that 
eateth  me  shall  live  by  me ; "  where  "  by  "  is  equivalent  to 
on  account  of,  owing  to,  and  the  dependence  of  a  Christian's 
spiritual  life  on  Christ  is  paralleled  with  the  dependence  of 
Christ's  life  on  the  Father. 

A  few  phrases  illustrative  of  Christ's  self-assertion  are 
culled  from  the  highly  figurative  and  intensely  cloudy  dis 
course  comprised  in  John  vi.  32-63.  To  say,  "  My  Father 
giveth  you  the  true  bread  from  Heaven ;  the  bread  of  God 
is  He  which  cometh  down  from  Heaven  and  giveth  life  unto 
the  world ;  I  am  the  Bread  of  Life,  the  Living  Bread  which 
cometh  down  from  Heaven  and  giveth  Life  unto  the  world ; 
I  am  the  Bread  of  Life,  —  the  Living  Bread  which  cometh 
down  from  Heaven  "  (verses  32,  33,  48,  51),  is  to  use  language 
into  which  vast  significance  may  be  put,  but  which  contains 
no  hint  of  Deity.  When  the  explanatory  clauses  are  added, 
"  the  Bread  that  I  will  give  is  my  flesh  ;  except  ye  eat  the 
flesh  of  the  Son  of  Man,  and  drink  His  blood,  ye  have  no 
life  in  you,  for  my  flesh  is  meat  indeed,  and  my  blood  is 
drink  indeed  "  (verses  51,  53,  55),  —  phraseology  perfectly 
incomprehensible  is  employed,  unless  we  swTeep  away  its 
whole  literal,  natural  meaning,  and  take  license  to  think  what 
we  will,  from  the  thoroughly  emancipating  announcement, 
—  "  It  is  the  Spirit  that  quickeneth  ;  the  flesh  profiteth  noth 
ing:  the  words  that  I  speak  unto  you  are  spirit  and  life" 
(ver.  63).* 

"  John  iv.  14  points  to  a  living  water  of  the  Spirit,  which 
Christ  can  give,  and  which  will  quench  the  thirst  of  souls 

*  Dr.  Schenkel,  in  his  "  Sketch  of  the  Character  of  Jesus,"  remarks  : 
"  The  omission  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  of  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
is  explained  by  the  circumstance  that,  from  his  dogmatic  point  of  view, 
the  Evangelist  could  attach  thereto  only  a  relatively  slight  importance,  in 


250  FORMS  OF  CHRIST'S  SELF-ASSERTION. 

that  drink  it."  That  text,  no  doubt,  relates  to  the  gift  of 
God  (ver.  10),  bestowed  in  and  through  Christ,  and  offers  no 
excuse  for  the  insertion  of  ideas  about  Christ's  Godhead. 
Jesus  Himself,  and  His  teaching,  were  the  gift  of  God ;  the 
living  water  was  the  doctrine  of  God  which  Jesus  taught, 
and  all  the  spiritual  blessings  annexed  to  a  sincere  reception 
of  the  doctrine.  To  hear  Christ's  words,  and  to  believe  on 
the  Father  Who  sent  Him,  is  to  have  the  living  water 
(v.  24). 

In  verses  23  and  24  of  John  iv.  it  is  noteworthy  the  Per 
sonal  Father  is  identified  with  the  God  Who  is  a  Spirit,  in  a 
manner  quite  foreign  to  the  notion  that  the  Nature  and 
Name  of  God  cover  any  Form  or  Person  besides  the  Father. 

Protestants  who  have  learned  to  substitute  an  intelligent 
loyalty  to  their  Great  Master,  for  an  indiscriminating  adhe 
sion  to  every  scrap  of  Evangelical  testimony  respecting  Him, 
will  probably  hesitate  before  they  see  His  exact  words  in 
John  iv.  22 ;  or  again,  in  x.  8,  with  which  compare  Matt.  v. 
17-19.  *The  latter  of  the  two  texts  is  a  self-assertion  Mr. 
Liddon  cites,  but  he  adroitly  dilutes  it  by  the  addition  which 
I  italicize :  "  All  who  came  before  Him  He  characterizes  as 
having  been,  by  comparison  with  Himself,  the  thieves  and 
robbers  of  mankind." 

The  opening  verses  of  John  xv.  are  treated  unfairly  by 
leaving  out  the  important  sentences :  "  My  Father  is  the 
husbandman.  Every  branch  in  me  that  beareth  not  fruit, 
He  taketh  away ;  and  every  branch  that  beareth  fruit,  He 
cleanseth  it,  that  it  may  bear  more  fruit.  Now  ye  are  clean 
through  the  word  which  I  have  spoken  unto  you."  To  fill  in, 
ad  libitum,  the  more  allegorical,  and  pass  over  the  plainer, 
simpler  expressions,  is  not  to  expound,  but  to  distort.  The 
superiority  and  Divine  activity  of  "  the  God  and  Father  "  are 

consistency  with  his  declaration  that  faith  in  the  Saviour  is  the  true  eat 
ing  and  drinking  of  His  body  and  blood  (John  vi.  35,  47,  51)." 

Certainly,  the  exposition  which  couples  the  Discourse  in  John  vi.  with 
the  doctrine  of  a  real  presence  of  Christ's  Human  Nature  in  the  Ploly 
Eucharist  is  only  ecclesiastically,  not  rationally,  sound. 


251 

prominent,  if  the  passage  is  not  mutilated  and  perverted  for 
the  sake  of  Orthodox  conceptions.  Nothing  short  of  an  ine 
radicable  persuasion  that  Jesus  is  God  can  dispose  a  rational 
mind  to  find  in  the  passage  the  faintest  indications  of  His 
Godhead. 

"  He  promises  that  all  prayer  offered  in  His  Name  shall  be 
answered : '  If  ye  ask  any  thing  in  My  Name,  /will  do  it '  (xiv. 
14)."  This  text  ought,  undoubtedly,  to  be  read  in  close  con 
nection  with  the  two  preceding  verses,  and  refers  to  miracu 
lous  powers,  even  greater  than  those  Christ  had  exhibited, 
which  were  to  be  vouchsafed  to  His  disciples  in  consequence 
of  His  going  to  the  Father.  Our  Lord  did  not  direct  that 
prayer  should  be  offered  to  Himself;  and  the  avowed  object 
of  His  action  was  the  Father's  glory  (ver.  13) ;  and  in  verse 
16,  He  is  made  to  say,  "  I  will  ask  the  Father,  and  lie  shall 
give  you"  &c.  The  Apostolical  view  of  spiritual  gifts  as  dis 
pensed  by  Christ  may  be  gathered  from  Acts  iii.  33. 

"  He  contrasts  Himself  with  a  group  of  His  countrymen 
as  follows :  '  Ye  are  from  beneath,  I  am  from  above :  ye  are 
of  this  world,  I  am  not  of  this  world'  (viii.  23)."  Granting 
Jesus  here  points  to  heavenly  origin  as  well  as  to  heavenly- 
mindedness,  what  semblance  of  an  intimation  is  there  that 
He  is  Almighty  God,  in  Essence  the  Equal  of  the  Father  Who 
sanctified  and  sent  Him  (x.  36)  ?  In  xv.  19,  He  declares  His 
disciples  are  not  of  the  world ;  and  again,  in  xvii.  14  and  16, 
He  twice  affirms :  they  are  not  of  the  world,  as  lam  not  of  the 
world.  The  expression  not  of  (tx)  the  world,  therefore,  car 
ries  no  implication  of  Deity.  But  men  would  perhaps  be 
less  inclined  to  infuse  their  own  conceptions  into  verse  23,  if 
they  looked  a  little  carefully  at  the  words  of  verse  38.  "  I 
speak  that  which  I  have  seen  with  My  Father;  and  ye  do 
that  which  ye  have  seen  with  your  Father  "  (the  devil,  see 
ver.  44).  The  extreme  freedom  of  this  language  ought  to 
teach  us  caution,  and  to  show  the  folly  of  intruding  precise 
meanings  amongst  vague  and  figurative  words.  In  what 
sense  was  the  Devil  the  Father  of  the  Jews  ?  In  what  sense 
were  they  "  of  (tx)  him,"  and  how  had  they,  by  sight  or  hear- 


252         IS  CHRIST  THE  LORD  OF  DEATH  ? 

ing,  learned  from  him  ?  Surely  not  in  any  literal  natural 
sense. 

"  Christ  claims  to  be  the  Lord  of  the  realm  of  death ;  He 
will  Himself  wake  the  sleeping  dead ;  all  that  are  in  the 
graves  shall  hear  His  voice  (v.  28,  29 ;  vi.  39).  He  proclaims : 
'I  am  the  Resurrection  and  the  Life  '  (xi.  25)."  The  obscu 
rity  of  the  sense  in  v.  21-30  is  ill-suited  to  any  such  brief  and 
positive  exposition.  It  is  very  far  indeed  from  being  certain 
a  bodily  resurrection  is  there  referred  to.  The  now  'is,  of 
verse  25,  appears  to  point  distinctly  to  spiritual  resurrection 
from  the  moral  and  metaphorical  "  death  of  sin." 

When  vi.  39  is  interpreted  through  the  dogma  that  a  resur 
rection  of  the  material  body  will  be  the  lot  of  the  whole 
human  race,  the  connection  of  verses  37  and  39  either 
entails  narrow  and  Calvinistic  notions  of  salvation,  or,  pre 
suming  the  Father's  gift  to  cover  all  mankind  (see  xvii.  2), 
entails  belief  in  universal  salvation,  because  "  all  whom  "  the 
Father  gives  will  come  to  Christ,  and,  of  the  entire  gift, 
nothing  will  be  lost,  but  the  whole  will  be  raised  up  at  the 
last  day.  If  Mr.  Liddon  is  not  prepared  to  oifer  a  clearly 
denned  and  consistently  Orthodox  exposition,  he  does  not, 
from  the  Protestant  point  of  view,  understand  the  text  suffi 
ciently  well  to  justify  reference  to  it  for  purposes  of  proof 
and  illustration. 

There  is  enough  of  uncertainty  whether  spiritual  or  bodily 
life  and  resurrection  are  intended  in  xi.  25,  to  preclude  infer 
ences.  As  the  divinely  sent  and  qualified  Leader  in  the  way 
to  God  ;  as  the  Teacher  of  awakening  truths  which,  when 
they  are  practically  believed,  conduct  to  eternal  life,  Christ 
might,  in  the  freedom  of  Eastern  diction,  have  justly  denom 
inated  Himself  the  Resurrection  and  the  Life.  When  men 
charge  the  sayings  ascribed  to  Him  in  the  "  Gospel  according 
to  John "  with  either  broad  literalism,  or  with  the  subtle 
accuracies  or  inaccuracies  drawn  from  scholastic  theology, 
they  only  show  they  have  not  studied  the  Fourth  Evangelist 
with  attention  enough  to  understand  his  style,  and  elicit 
coherent,  generally  applicable  rules  of  interpretation.  Their 


THE  HONOR  DUE  TO  CHRIST.  253 

guiding  maxim  is  the  re-enforcement  of  Orthodoxy,  and, 
beneath  that  most  pliable  of  canons,  metaphors  become,  as 
convenience  may  demand,  either  most  metaphorical,  or  sin 
gular  combinations  of  pregnancy  and  precision.  Their  rule 
may  be  very  discreet,  and  productive  of  excellent  results,  but 
it  can  have  no  claim  to  be  rational,  except  as  it  follows  in 
the  train,  and  echoes  the  voice,  of  a  Church  instinct  with 
Divine  inspiration,  and  commissioned  authoritatively  to 
expound  and  reveal. 

Assigning  to  the  particle  x«#cog  (as)  the  utmost  possible 
exactness  and  stretch  of  literal  significance,  and  absolutely 
ignoring  the  fact,  attested  throughout  the  Christian  Scrip 
tures,  that  the  first  Christians  did  not  honor  the  Son  with  the 
same  kind  and  degree  of  honor  with  which  they  honored  the 
Father,  — Mr.  Liddon  asserts:  "our  Lord  encourages  men  to 
honor  Him  as  they  honor  the  Father "  (John  v.  23) ;  and 
again,  a  few  pages  further  on,  assures  his  readers  that,  by  our 
Lord's  words,  "  the  obligation  of  honoring  the  Son  is  defined 
to  be  just  as  stringent  as  the  obligation  of  honoring  the 
Father  ; "  and  yet  again,  in  a  note,  remarks  :  "  if  the  honor 
paid  to  the  Son  be  merely  relative,  if  He  be  merely  honored 
as  an  Ambassador  or  delegated  Judge,  then  men  do  not 
honor  Him  as  they  honor  the  Father  "  (p.  182). 

Now,  when  a  scholar  interprets  in  this  fashion,  if,  in  the 
judgment  of  charity,  we  admit  his  honesty,  we  cannot 
think  he  displays  his  intelligence.  Mr.  Liddon  must  know 
that  the  word  on  which  he  builds  is  frequently  used  in 
the  latest  Gospel  to  signify  a  general  and  proportionate 
resemblance,  rather  than  exact  likeness  and  equality  in 
degree.  Chapter  xvii.  affords  examples  in  which  he  would 
certainly  deny  identity  in  kind,  manner,  and  extent,  to  be 
indicated.  In  verse  11,  Christ  prays  that  those  whom  the 
Father  has  given  Him  "  may  be  one,  as  He  and  the  Father 
are ; "  and  in  verse  22,  He  is  made  to  say,  "  the  glory 
which  Thou  gavest  Me,  I  have  given  them,  that  they  may 
be  one  as  we  are  one."  Verse  16  recounts  the  declaration, 
"  they  are  not  of  the  world,  as  I  am  not  of  the  world ; " 


254  DOES    CHRIST   CLAIM 

verse  18,  "  as  Thou  hast  sent  Me  into  the  world,  I  also  have 
sent  them  into  the  world ; "  and  verse  23,  "  Thou  hast  loved 
them,  as  Thou  hast  loved  Me."  In  xv.  9,  10,  we  read : 
"  As  the  Father  hath  loved  Me,  I  also  have  loved  you ;  con 
tinue  ye  in  my  love.  If  ye  keep  my  commandments  ye 
shall  abide  in  my  love,  as  I  have  kept  the  Father's  com 
mandments  and  abide  in  His  love ; "  and  in  xx.  21,  "  as 
the  Father  hath  sent  Me,  I  also  send  you."  Will  Mr.  Lid- 
don  strain  the  xadmg  in  these  examples,  after  the  same  puerile 
unscholarly  fashion  in  which  he  strains  it  in  v.  23  ?  I  do  not 
press  him  with  the  circumstance,  that  one  or  two  of  the 
examples  differ  from  the  text  he  tortures,  in  having  xal  after 
x«#ooi,',  and  being  thereby  greatly  increased  in  strength  and 
precision,  as  descriptions  of  corresponding  manner.  In  trans 
lating,  I  have  neglected  the  true  force  of  xca  as  virtually  a 
comparative  particle  in  the  second  member  of  the  sentence. 
Indubitably,  xadwg  alone  has  not  necessarily  the  sense  Mr. 
Liddon  affixes.  It  may  mean,  in  proportion  as,  since,  inas 
much  as ;  and,  for  the  later  meaning,  Bloomfi eld's  "  Lexicon  of 
the  New  Testament"  rightly  refers  to  John xvii.  2 ;  Rom.  i.  28  ; 
1  Cor.  i.  6 ;  Eph.  i.  4  ;  Phil.  i.  7.  (See  also  Winer's  remarks, 
Grammar  of  New  Testament,  Sec.  liii.  8.)  An  exposition 
which  hinges  on  the  conjunction  as  is  simply  contemptible, 
and  justly  subjects  the  expositor  to  the  suspicion  of  deliber 
ately  counting  on  the  prejudices,  the  inattention,  and  the 
ignorance  of  his  readers.  A  reference  to  the  context  puts 
the  folly  of  Mr.  Liddon's  explanation  in  a  clear  and  strong 
light.  In  the  course  of  the  speech,  whence  the  text  impart 
ing  its  revelation  through  that  very  luminous  and  precise 
word  xadcog  is  picked  out,  the  Evangelist  reports  the  follow 
ing  statements :  — 

"  The  Son  can  do  nothing  of  Himself,  but  what  He  seeth 
the  Father  doing ;  for  whatever  things  He  doeth,  these  also 
doeth  the  Son  in  like  manner.  For  the  Father  loveth  the 
Son,  and  showeth  Him  all  that  Himself  doeth ;  and  He  will 
show  Him  greater  works  than  these^  that  ye  may  marvel. 
The  Father  judgeth  no  man,  but  hath  given  all  judgment 


THE    HONOR   DUE   TO    GOD  ?  255 

unto  the  Son.  As  the  Father  hath  life  in  Himself,  so  hath 
He  given  to  the  Son  to  have  life  in  Himself;  and  hath  given 
him  authority  to  execute  judgment  also,  because  He  is  the 
Son  of  Man.  I  can  of  myself  do  nothing  ;  as  I  hear,  I  judge, 
and  my  judgment  is  just;  because  I  seek  not  mine  own  will, 
but  the  will  of  Him  that  sent  Me.  If  I  bear  witness  con 
cerning  Myself,  my  witness  is  not  true.  There  is  another 
that  beareth  witness  concerning  Me,  and  I  know  that  the 
witness  which  He  witnesseth  concerning  Me  is  true  "  (John 
v.  19-32). 

Now,  if  these  words  have  any  rationally  ascertainable 
meaning,  and  were  not  designed  either  to  deceive  and  bewil 
der,  or  with  reserving  foresight  to  furnish  a  riddle  for  the 
Church's  Divine  light  to  solve,  —  can  we  imagine  they  were 
spoken  by  One  Who  knew  Himself  to  be,  in  Nature  and 
Attributes,  the  Eternal,  Self-existent  Father's  Equal  ? 

The  more  probable  rendering  of  the  verse  which  Mr.  Lid- 
don  isolates  and  misinterprets  is  :  "  That  all  men  may  honor 
the  Son,  since^  or  in  proportion  as,  they  honor  the  Father. 
He  that  honoreth  not  the  Son  honoreth  not  the  Father 
Who  sent  Him,"  exalted  Him,  and  made  Him  worthy  of 
honor. 

We  are  reminded  that,  in  Christ's  teaching,  "  to  love  Him 
is  a  necessary  mark  of  the  children  of  God :  '  If  God  were 
your  Father  ye  would  have  loved  Me '"  (John  viii.  42).  The 
rest  of  the  verse,  wThich  Mr.  Liddon  omits,  ought  to  be  added : 
"  For  I  came  forth,  and  am  come  from  God ;  for  I  came  not 
of  Myself,  but  He  sent  Me."  According  to  the  Bampton 
Lecturer's  dogma,  the  personal  I,  here,  and  elsewhere  in 
Christ's  speeches,  can  only  denote  the  Divine  Personality 
Which  is  of  the  Adorable,  Incorruptible  Essence,  identical 
in  Nature  and  Perfections  with  the  Almighty  Father.  But, 
upon  this  supposition,  the  language  becomes  hopelessly 
inscrutable  to  reason,  and  evidently  meant  for  the  ecclesias 
tical  as  distinguished  from  the  rational  mind.  Love  for  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  is,  doubtless,  a  characteristic  of  the  true 
children  of  God.  Hatred  to  Christ  may  with  truth  be  said 


256  DEMANDS   FOR   LOYE   AND   OBEDIENCE. 

to  involve  hatred  to  God  (John  xv.  23),  but  what  bearing 
have  these  facts  on  the  notion,  "  Christ  is  God  "  ?  The  first 
Epistle  of  Jolm  emphatically  teaches  that  to  love  our  -breth 
ren  is  a  necessary  mark  of  the  children  of  God,  and  affirms  : 
"if  any  one  say,  I  love  God,  and  hateth  his  brother,  he 
is  a  liar ;  for  he  that  loveth  not  his  brother  whom  he  hath 
seen,  how  can  he  love  God  Whom  he  hath  not  seen  ? " 
(iv.  20.) 

The  self-assertion  contained  in  the  statement,  "  If  ye  love 
Me,  keep  My  commandments "  (John  xiv.  15),  does  not, 
even  when  with  Mr.  Liddon  we  have  made  my  emphatic, 
transcend  the  claims  of  a  Teacher  conscious  of  a  divinely 
given  commission  and  endowments,  and  conscious  al^o  that 
grievously  false  teaching  prevailed  around  Him.  The  dis 
course  which  supplies  the  statement  just  quoted  supplies 
also  a  reason  for  remembering  and  obeying  Christ's  words, 
"  The  word  which  ye  hear  is  not  mine,  but  the  Father's  Who 
sent  Me"  (ver.24). 

"  The  most  representative  document  of  the  second  stage 
of  our  Lord's  teaching  is  the  Discourse  in  the  supper-room," 
given  in  the  13th  and  four  following  chapters  of  the  latest 
Evangelist.*  "His  subject  in  that  Discourse  is  Himself. 
Certainly  He  preaches  Himself  in  His  relationship  to  His 
redeemed ;  but  still  preaches,  above  all  and  in  all,  Himself. 
All  radiates  from  Himself,  all  converges  towards  Himself. 
The  sorrows  and  perplexities  of  His  disciples,  the  mission 
and  work  of  the  Paraclete,  the  mingling  predictions  of  suf 
fering  and  of  glory,  are  all  bound  up  with  the  Person  of 
Jesus,  as  manifested  by  himself.  In  those  matchless  words 
all  centres  so  consistently  in  Jesus,  that  it  might  seem  that 
Jesus  alone  is  before  us ;  alone  in  the  greatness  of  his  supra- 
mundane  glory ;  alone  in  bearing  His  burden  of  an  awful, 
fathomless  sorrow"  (p.  172). 

This  is  rhetorical,  but  is  it  true  ?     Any  one  who  will  with 

*  I  include  chapter  xvii.  in  the  Discourse,  since,  if  the  record  is  really 
historical,  the  prayer  of  Christ  must  have  been  addressed  aloud  to  God  in 
the  Disciples'  hearing,  for  their  instruction. 


"  MY  FATHER  IS  GREATER  THAN  I."        25  < 

attentive  care  study  the  language  attributed  to  Christ  in 
the  Discourse  referred  to  cannot  fail  to  perceive  the  uniform 
prominence  of  the  Father's  supremacy,  the  Father's  glory, 
and  the  Father's  imparted  gifts.  The  highest  self-assertion 
bespeaks  dependence  on  Him,  and  falls  very  short  of  claim 
ing  equality  and  identity  of  Nature  with  Him.  The  self- 
proclamation  culminates  in  the  claim  to  have  come  forth  from 
God  (xvi.  27,  30  ;  xvii.  8) ;  the  admission  of  that  claim  is  the 
comprehensive  aspect  of  Christian  faith.  In  terms  not  alto 
gether  perspicuous,  but  still  practically  clear  as  against  the 
conclusion,  "  the  Son  is  Himself  God,"  the  relation  of  the  Son 
to  the  Father  is  intimated  to  be  similar  to  that  of  the  disci 
ples  to  the  Son  (xiii.  20  ;  xiv.  20 ;  xv.  9,  10,  15 ;  xvii.  22). 

In  xiv.  28,  Christ's  inferiority  to  the  Father,  and  conse 
quent  exclusion  from  the  One  Self-existent  Substance,  is 
explicitly  avowed.  "  If  ye  loved  me,  ye  would  rejoice  that 
I  go  unto  the  Father,  for  my  Father  is  greater  than  I."  The 
manifest  truth  of  the  Father's  superior  greatness  should 
have  taught  the  disciples  to  rejoice  in  the  advantage  and 
honor  which  their  Great  Master  would  gain  by  going  to  God. 
There  is  nowhere  in  the  Gospels  the  smallest  particle  of  evi 
dence  the  Apostles  apprehended  Jesus  to  be  in  very  truth 
God  and  the  Father's  Equal.  His  assurance  that  the  Father 
was  greater  than  Himself  was  therefore,  undoubtedly,  not 
intended  to  correct  an  erroneous  opinion,  or  to  disclose  an 
unsuspected  fact.  It  was  intended  to  remind  the  Apostles, 
by  calling  their  attention  to  a  most  incontrovertible  truth, 
that,  in  the  desire  to  retain  Him  for  what  they  believed  to 
be  their  own  profit,  His  exaltation  and  aggrandizement  were 
being  somewhat  selfishly  and  unlovingly  forgotten.  The 
acknowledged  pre-eminence  of  the  One  God  and  Father,  as 
compared  with  the  greatness  of  Christ,  being  so  palpable, 
reference  to  it  at  once  suggested  and  enforced  the  thought 
that  in  departing  to  Him  Christ  would  be  a  gainer.  Reason 
ably  understood,  the  text  will  carry  no  other  meaning.  Its 
whole  rational  significance  turns  on  the  implication  that  the 
inferiority  of  Jesus  to  the  Father  is  the  broad  and  actual 

17 


258  SIMPLE   TRUTHS   STYLED   "STUPID   TRUISMS." 

inferiority  of  receptiveness  and  dependence,  not  the  narrow 
and  nominal  inferiority  of  such  relative  ineffable  subordina 
tion,  as  may  consist  with  sameness  of  Essence,  and  equality 
of  Godhead. 

Mr.  Liddon,  with  the  highest  capacity  for  a  style  of  expo 
sition  which  descries  what  is  latent  and  overlooks  what  is 
obvious,  observes :  the  best  of  men  would  be  "  guilty  of 
something  worse  than  a  stupid  truism,"  if  he  should  announce 
that  God  was  "greater"  than  himself. 

"Would  he  not  seem  to  imply  that  he  was  not  really  a 
creature  of  God's  hand  ?  Would  not  his  words  go  to  suggest 
that  the  notion  of  his  absolute  equality  with  God  was  not  to 
be  dismissed  as  altogether  out  of  the  question  ?  Should  we 
not  peremptorily  remind  him  that  the  life  of  man  is  related 
to  the  Life  of  God,  not  as  the  less  to  the  greater,  but  as  the 
created  to  the  Uncreated,  and  that  it  is  an  impertinent  irrever 
ence  to  admit  superiority  of  rank,  where  the  real  truth  can 
only  be  expressed  by  an  assertion  of  radical  difference  of 
natures  ?  And  assuredly  a  sane  and  honest  man,  who  had 
been  accused  of  associating  himself  with  the  Supreme  Being, 
could  not  content  himself  with  admitting  that  God  was 
greater  than  himself.  Knowing  himself  to  be  only  human, 
would  he  not  insist  again  and  again,  with  passionate  fervor, 
upon  the  incommunicable  glory  of  the  great  Creator  ? " 
(p.  200). 

Simple  truths  which  might,  on  account  of  their  simplicity, 
be  stigmatized  as  "  stupid  truisms,"  are  not  unfrcquent  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  but,  granting  the  words  in  question  do  obliquely 
imply  Christ  to  be  more  than  man,  that  does  not  impair  their 
explicit  assertion,  He  is  less  than  God,  or  establish  a  rational 
likelihood  that  greater  than  I  is  equivalent  to  in  one  or  two 
points  slightly  my  superior.  If  our  Lord  were  the  uncreated 
Father's  Equal,  and  lacked  no  attribute  of  Godhead,  how 
could  the  Father's  excelling  greatness  illustrate  His  gain  in 
going  to  the  Father?  It  might  have  been  profitable  to  Him 
to  have  manifested  again  in  Heaven  the  inalienable  splendors 
of  Deity  which  had  for  a  while  been  shrouded  upon  earth, 


PATRISTIC    ARGUMENTS. 

but  the  resumption  of  those  splendors  could  not  have  been 
depended  upon,  or  have  been  enhanced  by,  the  comparative 
greaterness,  "in  the  order  of  the  Divine  Subsistence,"  of  the 
merely  Co-equal,  Con  substantial  Father. 

Since  all  proof  is  wanting  that  our  Lord's  Apostles  ever 
suspected  Him  of  associating  Himself  with  God,  or  were 
disposed  to  pervert  His  words,  after  the  manner  of  His  Jew 
ish  foes,  there  is  no  fair  pretext  for  imagining  that,  in  speak 
ing  to  them,  He  would  shape  his  language  with  a  view  to 
malevolent  and  absurdly  false  calumnies.  Sane  and  honest 
men  are  not  sensitively  alive  to  foolish  falsehoods  which 
they  know  their  friends  do  not  believe ;  and,  if  ridiculous 
charges  are  noticed,  the  simplest  expression  of  simple  truth 
is  more  dignified  than  repeated  asseverations  and  "passionate 
fervor." 

In  days  when  the  intellect  was  less  sceptical,  and  faith  in 
mysteries  more  facile  than  now,  the  Father's  superiority  to 
the  Co-equal  Son  was  felt  to  be  perplexing,  and  Mr.  Liddon 
directs  his  readers  to  Suicer's  summary  of  Patristic  arguments 
"  against  the  Allan  abuse  "  of  John  xiv.  28.  "  The  (jist^ovor^g 
of  the  Father  is  referred  by  SS.  Athanasius,  Gregory  Nazi- 
anzen,  Chrysostom,  Basil,  arid  Hilary,  to  His  being  the  Un- 
begotten  One ;  by  SS.  Cyril,  Augustine,  Ambrose,  and  Leo, 
to  the  Son's  humiliation  as  incarnate." 

The  former  of  these  Patristic  opinions  brings  no  relief. 
Persons  afflicted  with  common  sense,  and  a  determination  to 
attach  meanings  to  the  phrases  employed  about  sacred  sub 
jects,  will  conjecture  that  the  difference  between  Unbegotten 
and  begotten  is  tantamount  to  the  difference  between  Inde 
pendence  and  dependence,  Producer  and  produced,  Creator 
and  creature. 

The  latter  opinion,  which  makes  the  phrase  under  discus 
sion  describe  only  diversity  of  condition,  is  nothing  better 
than  an  elusive  supposition,  involving  the  utterly  unsupported 
assumption  that  the  Apostles  knew  Jesus  to  be  God.  If  they 
did  not  know  Him  to  be  God,  the  saying,  "  My  Father  is 
greater  than  I,  because  He  is  in  glory,  and  I  am  in  humilia- 


260  CHRIST    EXCLUDES    HIMSELF 

tion,"  would,  for  them,  have  come  under  that  category  of 
exceedingly  plain  truth  which  Mr.  Liddon  calls  "stupid 
truism."  But  the  explanatory  expansion  is  purely  arbitrary, 
unless  the  Church  has  received  a  revelation  outside  the  Canon 
of  Scripture,  with  which  all  Canonical  statements  must  be 
reconciled. 

The  text  (John  xiv.  28)  can  hardly  be  denied  to  be  full  of 
the  perilous  semblance  of  direct  antagonism  to  ecclesiastical 
dogma,  which  so  remarkably  characterizes  the  higher  Scriptu 
ral  teaching  concerning  Christ's  Person.  The  methods  and 
experience  of  commentators  in  handling  this  and  other  pas 
sages  illustrate  the  duty  of  remorselessly  subordinating  the 
obstructive,  as  well  as  the  exceedingly  obscure,  and  at  best 
merely  germinal  enunciations  of  Holy  Scripture,  to  the  fully 
ripened  and  openly  pronounced  definitions  of  the  Church. 
What  unaided  intellectual  insight,  what  weary  gropings  of 
reason,  could  ever  have  convinced  truthful  and  pious  minds 
that  latent  claims  to  absolute  Deity,  and  Essential  Equality 
with  the  Almighty  Father,  do  not  jar  with  the  announcement, 
My  Father  is  greater  than  I! 

The  concluding  section  of  that  "  most  representative  Self- 
assertion  "  which  Mr.  Liddon  brings  into  court  consists  of  a 
prayer  to  God,  the  whole  tone  and  wording  of  which  appear 
to  be  directly  at  variance  with  the  supposition  of  there  hav 
ing  been  in  our  Lord's  mind  any  reserved,  underlying  con 
sciousness  of  proper,  actual  Deity.  In  His  intercourse  with 
the  Almighty,  some  expressions  betraying  clearly  His  real 
Personal  Rank  might  naturally  be  expected.  But  He  not 
only  prays  that  those  whom  the  Father  had  given  Him  may 
be,  by  the  Father,  kept  in  safety,  sanctified,  and  united,  but 
He  prays  also  that  He  Himself  may  be  glorified,  and,  using 
terms  the  most  exact  and  definite,  excludes  Himself  from  the 
One  Godhead  in  the  statement:  "This  is  Life  Eternal,  that 
they  may  know  Thee,  the  Only  True  G-od,  and  Jesus  Christ 
whom  Th6u  hast  sent"  (xvii.  3).  Combine  this  statement 
with  the  many  others  of  the  Discourse  in  the  supper-room, 
which  imply  receptivity,  inferiority,  dependence,  and  then 


FROM   THE    GODHEAD,    IN    JOHN    XVII.    3.  261 

let  reason,  reverence,  and  common  sense  decide  whether  the 
combination  does  not  impart  to  all  simplicity,  intensity,  and 
definiteness,  by  intimating  the  Father  to  be  the  Only  True 
God,  and  Jesus  Christ  not  to  be,  in  the  highest  and  absolute 
sense,  God  at  all.  Arid,  more  especially,  combine  it  with  the 
enunciation  of  the  Father's  pre-eminent  greatness.  Why  is 
the  Father  greater  than  the  Son  ?  Because  the  Father  is  the 
Only  True  God,  and  not  one  of  two  or  more  Forms,  Persons, 
or  Subsistencies,  each  of  Whom  is  enfolded  with  Him  in  the 
Unity  of  the  same  Nature,  and  is  Co-equal,  Co-eternal,  Con- 
substantial  with  Himself.  Unless  it  can  be  shown  (as  indubi 
tably  it  cannot)  that  other  portions  of  the  Fourth  Gospel 
aver,  in  unambiguous  terms,  Christ  to  be  truly  and  essentially 
God,  the  very  document  in  which  Mr.  Liddon  most  confides 
ought  to  have  warned  him  against  the  suicidal  folly  of  trying 
to  build  the  grandly  distinctive  dogma  of  the  Catholic  Church 
on  the  treacherous  Protestant  basis  of  reasonably  expounded 
Scripture. 

The  legitimate,  natural,  and  most  plain  meaning  of  John 
xvii.  3  is,  however,  battled  against  and  disguised  by 'devices 
of  unblushing  and  laborious  ingenuity.  After  quoting  the 
verse  in  a  note  (p.  237),  Mr.  Liddon  argues  :  — 

"  But  here  a  Sociman  sense  is  excluded.  (1)  By  the  con 
sideration  that  the  knowledge  of  God  and  a  creature  could  not 
be  Eternal  Life;  (2)  By  the  plain  sense  of  verse  1,  which  places 
the  Son  and  the  Father  on  a  level :  What  creature  could 
stand  before  his  Creator  and  say,  '  Glorify  me,  that  I  may 
glorify  Thee  '  ?  (3)  By  verse  5,  which  asserts  our  Lord's  pre- 
existent  glory.  It  follows  that  the  restrictive  epithets  only, 
true,  must  be  held  to  be  exclusive,  not  of  the  Son,  but  of  false 
gods,  or  creatures  external  to  the  Divine  Essence." 

With  what  scornful  intolerance  would  this  wriggling  sophis 
try  be  trampled  under  foot,  if  it  were  employed  against  a 
doctrine  of  Orthodoxy !  (1)  Christ  is  spoken  of  as  the  Am 
bassador  through  whom  the  Father  communicates  His  will, 
makes  known  His  messages  of  mercy,  and  establishes  His 
kingdom.  The  knowledge  of  our  Lord  in  this  function, 


262       THE  FATHER  "  THE  ONLY  TRUE  GOD." 

added  to  the  knowledge  of  the  Only  True  Q-od  Who  sends 
Him  (compare  ver.  8),  is  declared  to  be  the  subjective  con 
dition  and  pledge  of  Eternal  Life.  The  exclusive  restriction 
immanent  in  the  epithets  only,  true,  is  wholly  unaffected  by 
the  association  of  Christ  in  the  official  capacity  with  which 
the  Almighty  had  invested  Him.  Each  of  the  Beings  named 
is  to  be  recognized  according  to  the  terms  of  their  respective 
designations,  in  His  own  proper  character,  —  the  Father  as 
being  the  Only  True  God,  and  Jesus  Christ  as  being  the 
Father's  Messenger. 

(2)  The  sapient  assertion,  "  The  plain  sense  of  verse  1 
places  the  Son  and  the  Father  on  a  level,"  would  appear  to 
have  originated  in  the  not  very  pardonable  error  of  under 
standing  the  glorification  of  the  Father  by  the  Son  to  be  the 
same  in  kind  with  the  glorification  of  the  Son  by  the  Father; 
but  the  processes  referred  to  cannot  be  identical  or  similar. 
The  Only  True  God  glorifies  His  Servant  Jesus  (Acts.  iii. 
13 ;  1  Peter  i.  21),  by  raising  Him  from  the  dead,  exalting 
Him  to  Heaven,  and  giving  Him  to  be  Head  over  all  things 
in  the  Church  (Eph.  i.  22).  This  glorification  cannot  be 
reciprocated  in  kind  ;  but  the  Father  is  glorified  by  the  Son, 
in  the  accomplishment  of  human  salvation,  in  the  realization 
of  that  reconciliation  of  man  to  Himself,  in  which  He  has 
made  the  Son  His  Instrument,  the  Pattern  Image  and  First 
born  among  many  brethren  (Rom.  viii.  29),  the  Captain  of 
the  salvation  of  the  many  sons  brought  unto  glory  (Heb.  ii. 
10).  The  mode  in  which  the  Son  was  to  glorify  the  Father 
is  intimated,  not  obscurely,  in  the  immediate  context  of  the 
verse  now  in  question :  "  Since  Thou  hast  given  Him  power 
over  all  flesh,  in  order  that  He  should  give  eternal  life  to  as 
many  as  Thou  hast  given  Him."  From  verse  4  we  learn  that 
the  Son  had  already  glorified  the  Father  on  the  earth,  by  fin 
ishing  the  work  which  the  Father  had  given  Him  to  do.  And 
when  the  different  natures  of  the  glorifying  processes  on  the 
parts  of  the  Creator  and  the  creature  are  remembered,  there  is 
seen  to  be  nothing  unbefitting  in  supposing  even  an  ordinary 
human  creature  to  stand  before  his  Creator  and  say,  "  Glorify 


PRESUMED   REVELATION    OF   DEITY.  263 

me,  that  I  may  glorify  Thee."  The  highest  end  and  duty 
of  the  Christian's  existence  in  this  world  is  to  glorify  God,  and 
the  same  (more  perfectly  attained  and  accomplished)  will 
be  the  end  and  duty  of  his  existence  in  the  world  to  come. 
When  the-  loving  and  obedient  child  of  God  looks  trustfully 
forward  1  j  the  delights  and  employments  of  the  Heavenly 
Home,  v*hat  more  suitable  petition  can  ascend  from  his  heart 
and  lips,  than  "  Glorify  me,  that  I  may  glorify  Thee  "  ? 

(3)  The  reference  to  "  our  Lord's  pre-existent  glory"  in 
verse  5,  certainly  does  not  denote  that  glory  to  be  the  inher 
ent,  irrelinquishable  grandeur  of  Consubstantial,  Self-subsist 
ing  Godhead.  On  the  contrary,  the  glory  is  acknowledged 
to  be  a  gift  and  boon  from  the  Father.  Consider,  in  conjunc 
tion  with  verse  5,  the  language  of  verses  22  and  24,  and  the 
utter  unreasonableness  of  attempting  to  identify  the  conferred 
glory  with  the  Majesty  of  true  Deity  will  be  manifest.  Theo 
logians  are  rarely  aware  of  the  strength  of  their  own  edu 
cational  and  professional  leanings,  but  no  unsophisticated 
mind  would  ever  have  conjectured  that  John  xvii.  3  does  not 
shut  out  the  meaning,  "  Thee,  the  Only  True  God,  and  Jesus 
Christ,  the  True  God  Whom  Thou  hast  sent." 

In  forging  his  defensive  weapons,  Mr.  Liddon  naturally 
dwells  on  John  xiv.  23,  and  contends  that  Jesus  virtually 
proclaims  His  own  Deity  when  He  associates  Himself  with 
God,  in  the  saying,  — 

"  '  If  a  man  love  me,  he  will  keep  my  words  ;  and  my  Fa 
ther  will  love  him,  and  TFtf  will  come  unto  him,  and  make 
Our  abode  with  him.'  Reflect :  Who  is  this  Speaker  That 
promises  to  dwell  in  the  soul  of  man  ?  And  with  whom 
does  He  associate  Himself  ?  It  may  be  true  of  any  eminent 
saint  that  'God  speaks  not  to  him  as  to  one  outside  Himself; 
that  God  is  in  him  ;  that  he  feels  himself  with  God ;  that  he 
draws  from  his  own  heart  what  he  tells  us  of  the  Father; 
that  he  lives  in  the  bosom  of  God  by  the  intercommunion  of 
every  moment.'  But  such  an  one  could  not  forget  that,  fa 
vored  as  he  is  by  the  Divine  Presence  illuminating  his  whole 
inner  life,  he  still  lives  at  an  immeasurable  distance  beneath 


264  DOES    CHRIST   PROCLAIM 

the  Being  Whose  condescension  has  so  enriched  him.  In 
virtue  of  his  sanctity,  he  would  surely  shrink  with  horror 
from  associating  himself  with  'God ;  from  promising,  along 
with  God,  to  make  a  dwelling-place  of  the  souls  that  love 
himself;  from  representing  his  presence  with  men  as  a  bless 
ing  co-ordinate  with  the  presence  of  the  Father ;  from  attri 
buting  to  himself  oneness  of  will  with  the  Will  of  God  ;  from 
implying  that,  side  by  side  with  the  Father  of  spirits,  he  was 
himself  equally  a  ruler  and  helper  of  the  life  of  the  souls  of 
men"  (p.  178). 

Now  if  the  doctrine  "  Christ  is  God  "  had  any  well-marked 
and  adequate  Biblical  sanction ;  if  there  existed  any  indica 
tions  of  its  having  been  so  familiar  as  to  be  the  natural 
explanation  of  obscure  and  exceptional  expressions,  then, 
unquestionably,  the  text  Mr.  Liddon  handles  so  vigorously 
might  be  fairly  quoted  as  harmonizing  and  corroborative. 
But,  unsupported  and  counterbalanced,  it  has  no  argumenta 
tive  weight,  and  the  language  of  the  near  context  (ver.  20), 
to  say  nothing  of  other  passages  in  the  last  Gospel,  might 
teach  us  to  be  cautious  how  we  inject  meanings  into  such 
phrases  as  abiding  with,  being  in,  and  dwelling  in.  "At 
that  day  ye  shall  know  that  I  am  in  my  Father,  and  ye  in 
me,  and  I  in  you"  (comp.  xv.  4-7  ;  xvii.  21,  23,  26).  Unless, 
too,  the  hard  exigencies  of  his  position  had  coerced  Mr.  Lid 
don  to  clutch  recklessly  at  possible  deductions,  he  would 
have  noticed  how  verse  24  indirectly  negatives  Christ's  Deity. 
"  The  word  which  ye  hear  is  not  mine,  but  the  Father's  Who 
sent  me."  If  Jesus  and  the  Father  are  bound  together  by 
unity  of  Nature  and  Attributes,  the  "  Avord  "  is  in  all  strict 
ness  as  much  Christ's  as  the  Father's,  and  nothing  is  added 
to  its  dignity  or  sacredness  when  it  is  in  any  sense  disowned 
by  the  one  and  transferred  to  the  other.  And  even  a  Bamp- 
ton  Lecturer  may  be  asked  to  remember  the  twenty-eighth 
verse,  before  he  proceeds  to  drag  in  theories  through  the 
twenty-third.  Whether  the  Discourse  in  the  supper-room  is 
reported  verbatim,  or  is  a  compilation  of  the  Evangelist's 
from  loose  and  imperfect  data,  of  which  we  can  never  now 


HIS    OWN    GODHEAD  ?  265 

know  the  original  form,  still  we  may  venture  to  surmise 
that  even  the  highest  inspiration,  in  preparing  materials  for 
the  exegetical  offices  of  the  Church,  did  not  quite  renounce 
rational  coherence,  and  that  therefore  the  relation  implied 
in  the  associating  words,  "  We  will  come,  and  make  Our 
abode,"  is  compatible  with  the  inferiority  avowed  in  the 
saying,  "  My  Father  is  greater  than  7." 

Mr.  Liddon  is  convinced  the  claim  to  be  universal  Judge 
is  irreconcilable  with  the  capacities  of  any  created  intelli 
gence.  And  if  the  question  were  simply  a  problem  proposed 
t3  human  reason  and  experience,  much  might  be  said  for 
his  view ;  but  I  must  again  remind  him  bare  rationalism  is 
inadmissible.  In  surveying,  from  the  ground  he  has  taken, 
the  doctrine  of  our  Lord's  Divinity,  we  are  not  concerned 
with  what  reason  alone  makes  probable,  but  with  what  the 
Sacred  Writings,  reasonably  interpreted,  teach.  And  they 
teach,  with  a  clearness  and  accuracy  which  nothing  can  invali 
date  (short  of  a  revelation  more  authoritative  and  explicit 
than  themselves),  that  the  province  of  judgment  belongs 
primarily  to  the  Almighty,  and  that  He  delegates,  commis 
sions,  and  qualifies  His  Son,  Servant,  and  Messenger,  Jesus 
Christ,  to  act  the  part  of  Judge.  "  To  Him  the  Father  has 
given  all  judgment ;  and  given  Him  authority  to  execute  judg 
ment,  because  He  is  the  Son  of  Man  (John  v.  22,  27).  He 
is  ordained  of  God  to  be  the  Judge  of  the  quick  and  the 
dead.  God  lias  appointed  a  day  in  which  He  will  judge 'the 
world  in  righteousness  by  a  man  whom  lie  has  ordained 
(Acts  x.  42;  xvii.  31).  God  will  judge  the  secrets  of  men 
through  Jesus  Christ  (Rom.  ii.  16)."  The  authors  of  these 
announcements  may  be  quite  mistaken,  and  far  behind  Mr. 
Liddon  in  the  scope  and  exactness  of  their  information ;  but 
they  announce  plainly  enough  that  Jesus  is,  in  the  work  of 
judging,  God's  Agent ;  the  Holder  of  an  appointment  from 
God,  the  Wielder  of  divinely  consigned  prerogatives.  If 
judgment  appertains  to  Christ's  glorified  condition  as  the 
Messiah,  God  has  highly  exalted  Him  •  and  made  Him  both 
Lord  and  Christ.  He  is  not  Judge  in  right  of  infinite,  inher- 


266         CLAIM  TO  BE  UNIVERSAL  JUDGE. 

ent,  independent  qualities,  but  in  right  of  Divine  ordination, 
and  imparted  gifts.  Orthodox  Protestant  expositors  may, 
if  they  choose,  pronounce  this  to  be  irrational,  but  they  will 
argue  more  to  the  purpose  when  they  state  what  other  mean 
ing  the  words  of  Scripture  will  rationally  bear. 

That  Evangelists  and  Apostles  did  not  imagine  the  task 
of  judging  to  demand  the  independent  possession  of  the 
boundless  resources  of  Deity  is  evident  from  the  feet  of 
Christ's  being  made  to  promise  that  the  Twelve  (including 
Judas  Iscariot  ?)  "  shall  sit  on  twelve  thrones,  judging  the 
twelve  tribes  of  Israel "  (Matt.  xix.  28),  —  a  promise  which 
St.  Luke  repeats  without  specifying  the  number  of  thrones, 
but  with  the  prefatory  statement :  "  I  appoint  unto  you  a 
kingdom,  as  (xadcog)  my  Father  hath  appointed  unto  me  " 
(xxii.  28-30).  St.  Paul,  also,  was  inspired  to  teach,  "the 
saints  shall  judge  the  world,  and  judge  angels"  (1  Cor.  vi.  2, 
3 ;  comp.  Rev.  ii.  27 ;  iii.  21).  These  passages  indicate,  on  the 
part  of  the  Sacred  Writers,  a  point  of  view  different  from 
that  which  Mr.  Liddon's  rationalism  furnishes,  and  a  disability 
to  perceive,  in  the  functions  of  judgment,  duties  necessarily 
beyond  the  range  of  created  and  divinely  equipped  intelli 
gence. 

If  the  foregoing  considerations  are  fairly  weighed,  the  con 
cluding  section  of  Matt,  xxv.,  which  Mr.  Liddon  labors  to 
utilize,  cannot  contribute  to  his  argument.  But,  with  respect 
to  that  section,  there  is,  obviously,  something  more  to  be 
added.  Supposing  Jesus  really  to  have  uttered  the  sayings 
therein  narrated,  they  must  be  taken  together  with  their  gen 
eral  context  (for  they  terminate  a  series  of  closely  connected 
discourses),  and  compared  with  some  other  sayings  which 
lead  up  to  the  emphatic  predictions  :  "  Verily  I  say  unto  you, 
this  generation  will  not  pass  away,  till  all  these  things  be 
fulfilled"  (Matt.  xxiv.  34;  Mark  xiii.  30;  Luke  xxi.  32; 
compare  also  the  very  distinct  statement  in  Matt.  xvi.  27, 
28).  "  Verily,  I  say  unto  you,  ye  shall  not  have  finished  the 
cities  of  Israel,  till  the  Son  of  Man  be  come"  (Matt.  x.  23). 
These  texts  are  more  than  sufficient  to  make  a  sincerely  truth- 


CHRIST'S  CLAIMS  UPON  THE  HUMAN  SOUL.        267 

seeking,  cautious  thinker  pause,  before  he  interprets  the 
highly  figurative  and  dramatic  expressions  contained  in  Matt, 
xxv.  31-46,  of  a  coming  to  judge  finally  the  human  universe 
of  quick  and  dead.  And  the  whole  probable  bearing  of  pur 
pose  and  language  in  chapters  xxiv.  and  xxv.  favors  the 
opinion  that  the  winding  up  (or  conclusion)  of  the  age,  which 
is  so  erroneously  translated  the  end  of  the  world,  relates  to 
the  close  of  the  Jewish  .Dispensation.  Quietly  to  take  for 
granted,  in  face  of  all  the  difficulties  and  uncertainty  which 
hang  around  the  phrases,  conclusion  of  the  age,  coming  of 
the  Son  of  Man,  a  yet  future  and  universal  assize  to  be 
intended  is  a  proceeding  which  can  add  no  strength  to  a 
doctrine,  and  no  credit  to  expositors  who  profess  to  find  their 
guiding  light  in  the  Bible,  and  the  Bible  only. 

"In  dealing  with  separate  souls,  our  Lord's  tone  and  lan 
guage  "  are,  according  to  Mr.  Liddon,  "  not  less  significant " 
than  in  claiming  to  be  universal  Judge.  "  We  will  not  here 
dwell  on  the  fact  of  His  forgiving  sins  (St.  Matt.  ix.  6 ;  St. 
Mark  ii.  10;  St.  Luke  v.  24),  and.  of  transmitting  to  His 
Church  the  power  of  forgiving  them  (St.  Matt.  xvi.  19  ;  xviii. 
18;  St.  John  xx.  23)."  For  the  ends  of  truth,  however,  we 
ought  to  dwell  upon  the  texts  referred  to,  so  far  as  to  note 
that  our  Lord  in  replying  to  the  murmuring  thought  of  the 
Scribes,  "Who  is  able  to  forgive  sins  except  God  only?" 
hinted  no  claim  whatever  to  Deity,  but,  employing  the  title 
which  unequivocally  denotes  His  Humanity,  said,  "  that  ye 
may  know  that  the  Son  of  Man  hath  power  on  earth  to  for 
give  sins,"  &c.  Some  of  his  auditors  fancied  He  was  arro 
gating  a  prerogative  of  the  Almighty.  He  answered  by  an 
explicit  confession  of  his  Manhood,  and  affirmed  His  power 
to  forgive  sins,  with  the  restricting  clause,  on  earth.  Neander 
comments :  "  God  forgives  the  sins  in  heaven,  but  Christ,  as 
Man,  announces  the  Divine  forgiveness.  Son  of  Man  and 
on  earth  are  correlative  conceptions."  The  context  shows 
that  the  forgiveness  the  Son  of  Man  had  power  to  grant  to 
have  been,  in  effect,  the  removal  of  present  disease,  which 
either  really  was,  or  was  believed  by  the  Jews  to  be,  inflicted 


268 

as  the  punishment  of  transgression  (comp.  John  v.  14 ;  ix.  2, 
34  ;  Luke  xiii.  2-5). 

If  the  power  of  forgiving  sins  was  transmitted  to  the  Apos 
tles,  and  in  succession  from  them  to  the  Church,  then  clearly 
the  possession  of  it  does  not  necessarily  involve  the  posses 
sion  of  Divine  attributes,  and  the  fact  to  which  Mr.  Liddon 
points  tells  against  his  argument. 

The  call  of  Christ,  Follow  Me,  which  occurs  several  times 
in  the  Gospels ;  and  the  words,  "  He  that  loveth  father  or 
mother  more  than  Me,  is  not  worthy  of  Me  :  if  any  man  come 
to  Me,  and-  hate  not  his  father,  and  mother,  and  wife,  and 
children,  and  brethren,  and  sisters,  yea  and  his  own  life  also, 
he  cannot  be  my  disciple"  (St.  Matt.  x.  37;  St.  Luke  xiv. 
26),  —  are  construed:  "It  is  clear  that  Pie  treats  those  who 
come  to  Him  as  literally  belonging  to  Himself,  in  virtue  of 
an  existing  right.  He  commands,  He  does  not  invite  dis- 
cipleship.  ...  It  is  impossible  to  ignore  this  imperious 
claim  on  the  part  of  Jesus  to  rule  the  whole  soul  of  man. 
Other  masters  may  demand  a  man's  active  energies,  or  his 
time,  or  his  purse,  or  his  thought,  or  some  large  share  in  his 
affections ;  but  here  is  a  claim  on  the  whole  man,  on  his  very 
inmost  self,  on  the  sanctities  of  his  deepest  life  "  (pp.  175, 
176).  The  stream  of  eloquence  then  expands  into  a  succes 
sion  of  vehement  interrogatories,  whose  form  may  be  readily 
guessed. 

Such  studied  inflation  of  language  which,  when  justly 
interpreted,  carries  a  much  lower  meaning,  scarcely  deserves 
attention.  The  contexts  amply  testify  the  complete  absence 
of  any  approach  to  an  assertion  of  inherently  Divine  right. 
As  the  Messenger  of  God  and  the  Teacher  of  Truth,  our 
Lord's  commission  and  office  quite  justify  the  tone  and  cast 
of  the  language  ascribed  to  Him,  without  resorting  to  the 
conjecture  that  He  spoke  from  a  reserved,  underlying  con 
sciousness  of  Godhead.  If  He  knew  Himself  to  be  the 
preacher  of  the  highest  moral  and  spiritual  verities ;  if  He 
felt  that  the  Father  had  sent  Him ;  that  the  Father  was  with 
Him ;  and  that  He  was  doing  the  Father's  work,  —  His  sell- 


MUST    CHRIST   BE    GOD    OR   MAN?  269 

consciousness  fully  suffices  to  explain  and  vindicate  the  say 
ings  which  Mr.  Liddon  loads  with  alien  inferences,  instead 

£3  ' 

of  equitably  expounding.  Antagonism  to  existing  earthly 
ties  and  relationships  inevitably  waited  on  faithful  disciple- 
ship  to  a  spiritual  Leader  and  Reformer  Who  came  to  purify 
and  elevate  old  truths,  and  to  proclaim  truths  practically 
new.  Decision,  promptitude,  the  renunciation  of  worldly 
interests,  and  in  some  cases  of  home  affections,  may  certainly 
be  due  tributes  of  allegiance  to  spiritual  light  and  truth, 
without  suggesting  more  than  the  inspiration  and  Divine 
Mission  of  the  Instructor  through  Whom  the  light  and  truth 
are  sent. 

I  find  it  very  difficult,  almost  impossible,  to  comprehend 
how  any  man  can  have  studied  the  Gospels,  and  yet  have 
brought  himself  to  pen  such  sentences  as :  "  How  can  Christ 
bid  men  live  for  Himself,  as  for  the  very  End  of  their  exist 
ence?  How  can  He  rightly  draw  towards  Himself  the  whole 
thought  and  love,  I  do  not  say  of  a  world,  but  of  one  single 
human  being,  with  this  imperious  urgency,  if  He  be  indeed 
only  the  Christ  of  the  Humanitarian  teachers,  if  He  be  any 
thing  else  or  less  than  the  supreme  Lord  of  life  ?  "  Where 
is  there  a  tittle  of  proof  Christ  did  any  thing  of  the  kind  ? 
In  what  discourse,  honestly  read  by  the  light  of  near  context, 
and  the  plain  general  purport  of  the  Gospel  records,  did  He 
ever  put  Himself  on  a  level  with  God,  or  claim  rights  neces 
sarily  Divine  ?  Assuredly  not  in  any  utterance  which  Mr. 
Liddon  has  been  able  to  cite.  But  the  poor  sophistry  of  a 
bastard  rationalism,  to  which  I  have  before  adverted,  is 
beneath  Mr.  Liddon's  declamation.  His  traditional  faith  and 
pious  credulity,  having  accepted  conclusions  destitute  of 
Scriptural  ground,  retain  his  understanding  to  plead  there 
is  no  place  or  rank  for  Jesus  between  actual  Godhead  and 
ordinary  Manhood.  Jesus  Christ  is  in  nature  merely  a 
human  fellow-creature,  or  he  is  in  Nature  the  Adorable, 
Uncreated  One ;  and  to  the  measures  of  these  alternatives 
all  Scripture  must  be  forcibly  contracted  or  forcibly  stretched. 


270  DID    CHRIST   EXPLICITLY 

Would  it  not  be  more  reverent,  as  well  as  more  logical  and 
convincing,  to  say  boldly :  the  Church  Universal  has  been 
guided  from  Above  to  decree  that  Christ  is  "  Very  God," 
and  by  so  decreeing  has  provided  a  pregnant,  paramount, 
unerring  rule  of  interpretation,  and  a  clew  to  senses  of  Script 
ure  otherwise  inaccessible  ? 

Mr.  Liddon,  however,  believes  he  can  adduce  something 
stronger  than  doubtful  deductions  and  rhetorical  special 
pleadings.  The  statements  and  claims  in  which  the  truth  is 
latent  are,  to  our  "positive  moral  relief,"  explained  by  dec 
larations  explicitly  asserting  Christ's  Godhead.  The  com 
parative  paucity  of  "  the  solemn  sentences  in  which  our  Lord 
makes  that  supreme  revelation"  is  acknowledged ;  but,  "  en 
tering  as  He  did  perfectly  into  the  actual  conditions  of  our 
human  and  social  existence,  He  exposed  Himself  to  a  triple 
scrutiny,  and  met  it  by  a  correspondingly  threefold  revela 
tion.  He  revealed  His  Divinity  to  His  disciples,  to  the 
Jewish  people,  and  to  His  embittered  opponents,  the  chief 
priests  and  Pharisees"  (p.  177). 

One  instance  of  this  revelation  is  our  Lord's  response 
when  "  Philip  preferred  to  Him  the  peremptory  request, 
1  Lord,  show  us  the  Father,  and  it  sufficeth  us.'  Well  might 
the  answer  have  thrilled  those  who  heard  it.  '  Have  I 
been  so  long  time  with  you,  and  yet  thou  hast  not  known 
Me,  Philip  ?  He  that  hath  seen  Me  hath  seen  the  Father  ; 
and  how  sayest  thou  then,  Show  us  the  Father  ?  Believest 
thou  not  that  I  am  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  Me  ? ' 
(St.  John  xiv.  9,  10.)  Now  what  this  indwelling  really 
implied  is  seen  in  our  Lord's  answer  to  a  question  of  St. 
Jude  (verse  23)."  The  argument  from  the  answer  to  St. 
Jude's  question  has  been  already  examined.  And  the  utter 
futility  of  the  appeal  to  the  reply  given  to  Philip  is  easily 
demonstrated.  According  to  the  Evangelist,  Jesus  had  just 
previously  (verse  6)  distinguished  Himself,  personally  and 
officially  at  any  rate,  from  the  Father.  He  then  had  added, 
"  If  ye  had  known  Me,  ye  would  have  known  my  Father 


REVEAL   HIS    OWN   DEITY  ?  271 

also,  and  from  henceforth  ye  know  Him,  and  have  seen 
Him."  *  This  declaration  drew  from  Philip  a  request  which 
seems  to  have  originated  in  the  mistake  of  understanding 
literally  the  words  have  seen.  The  rejoinder  Jesus  is  repre 
sented  to  have  made  was  either  a  definite  affirmation  that 
He  is  personally  the  Father,  and  that,  therefore,  i-n  Him  the 
Father  was  beheld  by  the  bodily  senses  (but  see  1  John  iv. 
12  ;  1  Tim.  vi.  16),  or  else  it  was  a  figurative  statement  that 
Tie  is,  through  the  Father's  benefactions  and  indwelling, 
the  Moral  Image  of  God,  and  the  Manifest er  of  His  teach 
ing,  character,  and  purposes.  Even  Orthodox  Protestant 
theologians,  when  out  of  their  pulpits,  will  not  deny  that  it 
was  the  latter,  and,  if  so,  it  carries  no  intimation  of  equality 
of  Attributes,  unity  of  Nature,  identity  of  Substance.  That 
our  Lord  must  not  be  supposed  to  have  intended  to  equalize, 
or  Essentially  to  identify  Himself,  with  the  Father,  is  evident 
from  the  sentence  which  follows  next  after  Mr.  Liddon's 
quotation,  "  the  words  that  I  speak  unto  you,  I  speak  not 
from  myself,  but  the  Father  Who  dwelleth  in  Me,  lie  doeth 
the  works"  (an  equally  good  reading  is,  doeth  Ills  works). 
See  also  verse  24. 

Men  who  have  strenuously  toiled  to  sustain,  by  such  argu 
ments  as  the  case  admits,  the  idea  that  Christ's  Deity  is  so 
set  forth  in  Scripture  as  to  be  sufficiently  within  the  cogniz 
ance  of  devout  and  diligent  intellects  interpreting  in  accord 
ance  with  the  common  laws  of  thought  and  diction,  hare 
perceived  the  weakness  of  inferences  drawn  from  our  Lord's 
"language  in  the  supper-room  to  St.  Philip."  Professor  Stu 
art  (Fourth  Letter  to  Channing)  wrote  :  — 

"  The  expression  of  Jesus  that  the  Father  is  in  Him,  and 
lie  in  the  Father,  I  do  not  understand  as  asserting  His  Di 
vine  Nature  in  a  direct  manner.  It  is  a  phrase  which  is  used 
to  express  the  idea  that  any  one  is  most  nearly  and  affection- 

*  Winer  (Grammar  of  New  Testament,  Sec.  xl.  4)  observes  that  this 
last  clause  must  be  rendered  literally  :  from  this  time  ye  know  Him,  and 
ye  have  seen  Him,  not  paraphrased,  ye  will  soon  know,  and  as  it  were  see 
Him. 


272  DID    CHRIST   EXPLICITLY 

ately  united  with  God  (see  1  John  iv.  16,  where  it  is  applied 
to  Christians;  also  verses  12,  13,  and  15)." 

The  error  of  the  explanation  which  deduces  the  Essential 
Unity  of  Christ  and  God  from  the  phraseology  under  con 
sideration  is  displayed  not  alone  by  the  context  (John  xiv. 
20),  and  other  texts  to  which  I  have  already  referred,  but 
also  by  Matt.  x.  40 ;  xxv.  40 ;  John  vi.  56 ;  1  John  iii.  6,  24  ; 
3  John  11). 

The  knowledge  and  the  sight  of  the  Father,  and  the  mutual 
indwelling  between  the  Father  and  Himself,  to  which  the 
words  of  Jesus  relate,  are  to  be  looked  for  in  disclosures  of 
God's  Will,  and  manifestations  of  His  character  and  power. 
And  if  the  other  reasons,  whose  cumulative  force  unanswer 
ably  dispels  the  interpretation  Mr.  Liddon  would  impose,  did 
not  exist,  we  should  still  be  bound  to  remember  how,  in  the 
same  discourse  and  chapter,  there  stands  the  very  intelligible 
avowal,  the  Father  is  greater  than  I;  an  avowal  which, 
whether  it  contrasts  Christ's  purely  pre-incarnate,  or  His 
whole  composite  Being,  with  the  Father's  Deity,  is  a  declara 
tion  that  He  is  Personally  less  than  God,  and  therefore  not 
Divine  in  the  senses  of  the  Nicene  and  Athanasian  Creeds. 

Another  instance  of  our  Lord's  "  explicit  and  supreme 
revelation  of  Himself"  is  presented  as  follows.  When  the 
Jews  saw  a  breach  of  the  Sabbath-day  in  the  healing  of  an 
impotent  man,  and  in  the  injunction  given  him  to  take  up 
his  bed  and  walk,  — 

"Jesus  justified  Himself  by  saying,  'My  Father  worketh 
hitherto,  and  I  work.'  '  Therefore,'  continues  the  Evangelist, 
'  the  Jews  sought  the  more  to  kill  Him,  because  He  not  only 
had  broken  the  Sabbath,  but  said  also  that  God  \vas  .His  Own 
Father,  making  Himself  equal  with  God' (St.  John  v.  17, 
18).  Now  the  Jews  were  not  mistaken  as  to  our  Lord's 
meaning.  They  knew  that  the  Everlasting  God  '  neither 
rests  nor  is  weary  ; '  they  knew  that  if  He  could  slumber  but 
for  a  moment  the  universe  would  collapse  into  the  nothing 
ness  out  of  which  He  has  summoned  it.  They  knew  that 
He  'rested  on  the  seventh  day 'from  the  creation  of  new 


REVEAL    HIS    OWN    DEITY  ?  273 

beings;  but  that,  in  maintaining  the  life  of  those  which 
already  exist,  He  'worketh  hitherto.'  They  knew  that  none 
could  associate  himself  as  did  Jesus  with  this  world-sustain 
ing  energy  of  God,  who  was  not  himself  God.  They  saw 
clearly  that  no  one  could  cite  God's  example  of  an  uninter 
rupted  energy  in  nature  and  providence  as  a  reason  for  set 
ting  aside  God's  positive  law,  without  also  and  thereby 
claiming  to  be  Divine.  .  .  .  Our  Lord  claims  a  right  to  break 
the  Sabbath,  because  God's  ever  active  Providence  is  not 
suspended  on  that  day.  Our  Lord  thus  places  both  His  Will 
and  His  Power  on  the  level  of  the  power  and  Will  of  the 
Father.  .  .  .  He  claims  distinctly  to  be  Lord  of  nature,  and 
thus  to  be  equal  with  the  Father  in  point  of  operative  energy. 
He  makes  the  same  assertion  in  saying  that  '  whatsoever 
things  the  Father  doeth,  those  things  the  Son  also  doeth  in 
like  manner'  (ver.  19).  To  narrow  down  these  words  so  as 
to  make  them  only  refer  to  Christ's  imitation  of  the  moral 
nature  of  God  is  to  take  a  liberty  with  the  text  for  which  it 
affords  no  warrant ;  it  is  to  make  void  the  plain  meaning  ol 
Scripture  by  a  sceptical  tradition.  Our  Lord  simply  and 
directly  asserts  that  the  works  of  the  Father,  without  any 
restriction,  are,  both  as  to  their  nature  and  mode  of  produc 
tion,  the  works  of  the  Son"  (pp.  179-181). 

How  much  may  be  hidden  in  a  little !  what  stupendous 
conclusions  in  a  few  exceedingly  vague  and  ambiguous 
words  !  The  commentary  of  Mr.  Liddon  proves,  at  least,  that 
the  obligation  of  extracting  Orthodox  dogma  from  Scripture 
alone,  develops  both  audacity  and  productive  ingenuity. 
The  simple,  consistent,  almost  obvious  explanation  of  Christ's 
language  is  neglected;  and  artificial, misguiding  assumptions, 
constructed  to  fit  the  dogma  to  be  defended,  are  inserted  at. 
nearly  every  step.  Our  Lord  did  not  "  set  aside  God's  posi 
tive  law ; "  He  did  not  break  the  Sabbath,  and  He  claimed 
no  right  to  break  it ;  He  broke  only  the  Pharisaical  and  Rab 
binical  rules  respecting  it ;  (see  some  pertinent  observations 
on  this  point  in  Smith's  Dictionary  of  the  BiUe  ;  Art.  Sab 
bath).  Does  Mr.  Liddon  believe  Christ's  act  of  healing  to 

18 


274  DID    CHRIST   EXPLICITLY 

have  been  a  real  violation  of  either  the  letter  or  spirit  of  the 
Fourth  Commandment  rightly  understood  ?  and  if  he  does 
not,  what  becomes  of  his  argument  ?  The  arbitrarily  restric 
tive  rules  which  Rabbis  had  appended  to  the  Commandment 
were  quite  separable  from  the  Commandment  itself.  Our 
Lord  does  not  "  cite  God's  example  of  an  uninterrupted 
energy  in  nature  and  providence  as  a  reason  "  for  His  own 
conduct.  He  far  more  naturally,  and  probably,  identifies  His 
own  acting  with  the  acting  of  the  Father,  by  whose  might 
He  performed  His  miracles.  The  Father  wrought;  and 
therefore  He,  being  the  Father's  obedient  Servant  and  Or 
gan,  wrought  in  resulting  unison. 

When  we  fix  our  attention  solely  on  the  Gospel  narrative, 
and  on  the  materials  the  Gospel  furnishes  to  shape  our  judg 
ment,  the  perversity  of  Mr.  Liddon's  exposition  becomes 
increasingly  apparent.  The  Evangelist  does  not  ascribe  the 
hatred  of  the  Jews  to  the  notion  that  our  Lord  associated 
Himself  on  terms  of  complete  parity,  with  "  the  world-sus 
taining  energy  of  God ; "  but  to  the  fact  of  His  having  in 
their  estimation  "  not  only  broken  the  Sabbath,  but  said  also 
that  God  was  His  own  Father,  making  Himself  equal  icith" 
or,  as  the  term  may  also  mean,  "  like  to  God."  It  is  not 
within  the  province  of  exposition  to  give  disproportionate, 
or  exclusive  predominance  to  aspects  which  the  Canonical 
Writer  does  not  put  forward.  The  precise  offence  lay  in  the 
presumed  arrogation  of  a  peculiar  Sonship,  of  which  the 
association  in  working  was  an  indication,  and  this  offence 
was  exaggerated  into  the  blasphemy  of  challenging  equality 
with  God.  The  Jews  malevolently  caught  at,  and  misrep 
resented,  Christ's  words.  The  Evangelist  does  not  indorse 
their  construction,  either  as  to  the  breach  of  the  Sabbath,  or 
the  nature  of  the  Sonship ;  and  in  his  record  generally  he 
assuredly  does  not  depict  them  as  being  the  best,  or  at  all 
unbiassed,  judges  of  our  Saviour's  meaning.  They  often 
misunderstood  and  perverted  His  sayings,  and  malignantly 
blamed  His  actions  (John  vii.  20,  23 ;  viii.  48 ;  ix.  16 ;  x.  19, 
20,  33).  And,  in  the  very  passage  from  which  Mr.  Liddon 


REVEAL    HIS    OWN   DEITY  ?  275 

argues,  Jesus  Himself,  with  pointed  emphasis,  denies  that  His 
accusers  had  rightly  apprehended  His  assertion  of  Sonship, 
when  they  saw  in  it,  or  pretended  to  see,  an  assumption  of 
actual  equality  with,  or  near  resemblance  to,  the  Almighty 
One.  "  The  Son  can  do  nothing  of  Himself,  save  what  He 
seeth  the  Father  doing ;  for  whatever  things  He  doeth,  these 
also  doeth  the  Son  in  like  manner.  For  the  Father  loveth 
the  Son,  and  showeth  Him  all  things  which  Himself  doeth ; 
and  He  will  show  Him  greater  works  than  these,  that  ye  may 
marvel "  (verses  19  and  20;  compare  verse  30).  As  regards 
one  point,  this  language  is  lucid  enough.  It  is  difficult  to 
imagine  what  terms  could  signify  more  plainly  that  the  Son- 
ship  of  Jesus  was  not  of  a  kind  to  equalize  Him  with  the 
Only  God  (verse  44).  He  acts  by  the  Father's  instruction, 
and  at  the  Father's  instigation.  His  action  waits  upon  the 
Father's  Will.  He  can  do  nothing  from  Himself;  He  origi 
nates  nothing ;  He  derives  unceasingly  leading  and  knowl 
edge  from  the  Father  Who  is  His  Teacher  and  Example. 
"  He  does  what  He  sees  the  Father  doing,  and  the  Father 
loves  Him,  and  shows  Him  all  things,"  &c.  The  single 
feature  which  this  phraseology  throws  distinctly  out  is  just 
that  which  corrects  the  Jews'  mistake.  Whatever  unde- 
scribed,  and  indescribable  privileges  of  near  communion  and 
instrumental  agency  the  Son  may  possess,  there  is  between 
Him  and  the  Father  a  vast  difference  ;  a  difference  which 
puts  equality  completely  out  of  the  question.  Transpose  the 
names  Father  and  Son,  and  in  the  opinion  of  every  sane 
mind  the  Father's  Godhead  will  be  clearly  denied.  We 
cannot  eliminate  the  relation  of  receptiveness,  imitation,  de 
pendence,  and  comparative  inability,  even  though  we  should 
arbitrarily  distend  the  whatsoever  things  and  all  things  be 
yond  the  sphere  of  the  works  in  which  Christ  was  engaged 
on  earth,  and  which  the  Father  wrought  through  Him. 

Elucidated  by  our  Lord's  own  revelations,  which  Mr.  Lid- 
don  conceives  to  have  been  with  such  singular  authenticity 
preserved  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  His  announcement,  My 
Father  worketh  hitherto,  and  I  work,  is,  at  the  utmost,  simply 


276  WRESTING   SCRIPTURE   TO    A    PURPOSE. 

a  statement  that  He  was  the  Father's  privileged  Associate 
and  Instrument ;  that  the  Father  was  working  in  Him,  and 
with  Him,  prompting,  directing,  and  empowering,  His  deeds. 
"  The  Father  Who  dwelleth  in  me,  He  doeth  the  works.  As 
the  Father  hath  commanded  me,  so  I  do"  (xivr.  10,  31). 
"My  judgment  is  just,  because  I  seek  not  mine  own  will,  but 
the  Will  of  Him  Who  sent  Me.  I  am  come  down  from 
heaven,  not  to  do  mine  own  will,  but  the  Will  of  Him  Who 
sent  Me"  (v.  30;  vi.  38).  These  expressions  accord  with 
the  immediate  context  of  the  announcement,  My  Father 
viorketh,  &c.,  and  leave  an  expositor  without  excuse  when 
he  tells  us,  the  spiteful,  carping  Jews  "  were  not  mistaken  as 
to  our  Lord's  meaning."  The  sense  manifestly  is,  that  Jesus 
was  the  Father's  willing  and  obedient,  as  well  as  chosen  and 
favored,  Organ  :  He  spoke  not  His  own  words,  and  did  not 
His  own  works,  but  always  acted  in  virtue  of  the  Father's 
Might,  and  revealed  the  Father's  Mind  and  Will.  In  every 
thing,  the  Father  wrought ;  and  therefore  the  Son,  "  Whom 
the  Father  had  sanctified,  and  sent  into  the  world  "  (x.  36), 
wrought  correspondingly. 

I  have  bestowed  what  will  perhaps  seem  to  some  readers 
an  unnecessary  amount  of  attention  on  a  very  poor  argument, 
but  John  v.  17  is  just  one  of  those  texts  which  feeble  but 
pretentious  Biblical  Orthodoxy  loves  to  isolate,  and  fill  with 
preconceptions.  It  is  subjected  to  exacting  stress,  and  loaded 
with  the  largest  significance  its  terms  could  possibly,  under 
the  most  favorable  circumstances,  be  made  to  carry,  while 
the  context,  and  the  numerous  other  passages  which  shed  a 
bright  light  upon  its  meaning,  are  either  quite  ignored,  or 
with  painstaking  ingenuity  explained  away.  The  concurring 
voices  of  many  previous  expositors  are,  doubtless,  with  Mr. 
Liddon,  but  constitute  only  a  slight  palliation  of  his  conduct, 
in  wresting  Scripture  with  such  a  violent  hand.  The  time 
has  gone  by  for  parrot-repetitions  of  other  men's  opinions  on 
the  doctrine  of  our  Lord's  Divinity.  We  must  either  cease 
to  make  acceptance  of  the  doctrine  a  condition  of  communion, 
or  we  must  put  the  doctrine  on  its  true  basis.  We  must 


ATTEMPTED  REMOVAL  OF  OBSTACLES.        277 

either  interpret  the  Bible  honestly  beneath  the  beams  of 
devoutly  inquisitive  reason,  comparing  Scripture  with  Script 
ure,  or  we  must  make  the  decisions  and  authority  of  the 
Church  Universal  our  starting-point  and  standard.  Without 
impugning  Mr.  Liddon's  conscientious  integrity,  I  cannot 
help  thinking  he  would  have  appeared  morally  to  greater 
advantage,  if  he  had  shown  himself  mentally  more  blind;  but 
he  saw  quite  well  the  obstacles  besetting  his  way,  and  made 
the  following  attempt  to  reconcile  the  language  of  his  cher 
ished  Evangelical  document  with  Orthodox  tradition  :  — 

"  Certainly  our  Lord  insists  very  carefully  upon  the  truth 
that  the  power  which  He  wielded  was  derived  originally  from 
the  Father.  It  is  often  difficult  to  say  whether  Pie  is  speak 
ing,  as  Man,  of  the  honor  of  Union  with  Deity,  and  of  the 
graces  which  flowed  from  Deity,  conferred  upon  His  Man 
hood  ;  or  whether,  as  the  Everlasting  Son,  He  is  describing 
those  natural  and  eternal  Gifts  which  are  inherent  in  His 
Godhead,  and  which  He  receives  from  the  Father,  the  Foun 
tain  or  Source  of  Deity,  not  as  a  matter  of  grace  or  favor, 
but  in  virtue  of  His  Eternal  Generation.  As  God,  '  the  Son 
can  do  nothing  of  Himselfj'  and  this  not  from  lack  of  Power, 
but  because  His  Being  is  inseparable  from  That  of  the 
Father.  It  is  true  of  Christ  as  God  in  one  sense  —  it  is  true 
of  Him  as  Man  in  another  —  that,  '  as  the  Father  hath  life  in 
Himself,  so  hath  He  given  to  the  Son  to  have  life  in  Himself.' 
But  neither  is  an  absolute  harmony  of  the  works  of  Christ 
with  the  Mind  and  Will  of  the  Father,  nor  a  derivation  of 
the  Divine  Nature  of  Christ  Itself  from  the  Being  of  the 
Father  by  an  unbegun  and  unending  Generation,  destructive 
of  the  force  of  our  Lord's  representation  of  His  operative 
energy  as  being  on  a  par  with  that  of  the  Father.  For  our 
Lord's  real  sense  is  made  plain  by  His  subsequent  statement 
that  the  'Father  hath  committed  all  judgment  unto  the  Son; 
that  all  should  honor  the  Son  even  as  they  honor  the  Father.' 
(v.  22,  23).  This  claim  is  indeed  no  more  than  He  had 
already  advanced,  in  bidding  His  followers  trust  Him  and 
love  Him"  (p.  181). 


278  CHRIST'S  STATEMENT  THAT  HE 

Many  theologians,  sincere  believers  in  Christ's  Deity,  have 
explained  the  words,  I  and  my  Father  are  one  (John  x.  30), 
of  union  in  purpose  and  working,  not  of  oneness  in  Substance, 
and  identity  in  Nature.  Neander  gave  up  the  text  for  the 
uses  of  controversial  advocacy,  when  he  wrote  :  "  We  under 
stand  by  the  oneness  here  spoken  of,  the  oneness  of  Christ 
with  the  Father  in  will  and  works,  in  virtue  of  which  His 
work  is  the  work  of  the  Father ;  but  this  was  founded  on  the 
consciousness  of  His  original  and  essential  oneness  wTith  th^ 
Father,  as  is  clear  (?)  from  His  testimonies  in  other  places  as 
to  His  relations  to  God.  In  and  of  itself  the  language  of 
Christ  contained  nothing  that  might  not  have  been  said 
from  the  stand-point  of  the  Jewish  idea  ot  the  Messiah.  But 
the  hostile  spirits  gladly  seized  the  occasion  to  accuse  Him 
of  blasphemy,  and  preparations  were  made  to  stone  Him" 
(Life  of  Christ).  But  Mr.  Liddon  resolutely  commits  him 
self  to  an  interpretation  from  which  orthodox  men  of  keener 
discernment,  or  feebler  faith,  have  deliberately  retired. 

"  Our  Lord  reveals  His  absolute  Oneness  of  Essence  with 
the  Father.  .  .  .  He  insists  upon  the  blessedness  of  His  true 
followers.  With  Him  they  are  secure  ;  no  power  in  earth  or 
in  heaven  could  'pluck  them  out  of  His  hand'  (ver.  28).  A 
second  reason  for  the  blessedness  of  His  sheep  follows :  '  My 
Father  which  gave  them  Me  is  a  Greater  Power  than  all ;  * 
and  no  man  is  able  to  pluck  them  out  of  My  Father's  Hand ' 
(ver.  29).  In  these  words  our  Lord  repeats  His  previous 
assurance  of  the  security  of  His  sheep,  but  He  gives  a  dif 
ferent  reason  for  it.  He  had  represented  them  as  '  in  His 
own  Hand.'  He  now  represents  them  as  in  the  Hand  of  the 
Almighty  Father.  How  does  He  consolidate  these  two  rea 
sons  which  together  assure  His  '  sheep  '  of  their  security  ? 
By  distinctly  asserting  His  own  oneness  with  the  Father :  '  I 
and  my  Father  are  One  Thing.'  Now  what  kind  of  unity  is 
that  which  the  context  obliges  us  to  see  in  this  solemn  state- 

*  Against  a  very  heavy  balance  of  MSS.  testimony,  Mr.  Liddon  arbi 
trarily  puts  the  adjective  greater  in  the  neuter.  The  Vulgate  supports  him, 
but  the  true  reading  is,  pretty  certainly,  the  masculine. 


279 

ment  ?  Is  it  such  a  unity  as  that  which  our  Lord  desired  for 
His  followers  in  His  intercessory  prayer,  —  a  unity  of  spiritual 
communion,  of  reciprocal  love,  of  common  participation  in 
an  imparted,  heaven-sent  Nature?  (as  in  St.  John  xvii.  11,  22, 
23.)  Is  it  a  unity  of  design  and  co-operation,  such  as  that 
which,  in  varying  degrees,  is  shared  by  all  true  workers  for 
God?  (1  Cor.  iii.  8.)  How  would  either  of  these  lower  uni 
ties  sustain  the  full  sense  of  the  context,  which  represents 
the  Hand  of  the  Son  as  one  with  the  Hand  —  that  is,  with 
the  Love  and  Power  —  of  the  Father,  securing  to  the  souls 
of  men  an  effectual  preservation  from  eternal  ruin  ?  A  unity 
like  this  must  be  a  dynamic  unity,  as  distinct  from  any  mere 
moral  and  intellectual  union,  such  as  might  exist  in  a  real 
sense  between  a  creature  and  its  God.  Deny  this  dynamic 
unity,  and  you  destroy  the  internal  connection  of  the  passage. 
Admit  this  dynamic  unity,  and  you  admit,  by  necessary 
implication,  a  unity  of  Essence.  The  Power  of  the  Son, 
which  shields  the  redeemed  from  the  foes  of  their  salvation, 
is  the  very  Power  of  the  Father  ;  and  this  identity  of  Power 
is  itself  the  outflow  and  the  manifestation  of  a  Oneness  of 
Nature"  (pp.  182-184). 

As  usual,  the  text,  and  immediately  preceding  context,  are 
cleverly  but  palpably  and  grossly  distorted.  Jesus  is  not 
made  to  say,  that  no  one  can,  but  that  no  one  will,  pluck  His 
sheep  out  of  His  hand.  The  ground  of  this  predicted  secu 
rity  is  then  stated  :  "  My  Father  Who  gave  them  to  Me  is 
greater  than  all,"  &c.  No  one  will  pluck  them  out  of  Christ's 
hand,  because  they  are  His  Father's  gift,  and  His  Father 
being  greater  than  all  ("  a  stupid  truism"  again  ?),  no  one  is 
able  to  pluck  them  out  of  His  Father's  hand.  In  relation  to 
their  safety,  He  and  His  Father  are,  in  effect,  one.  To  be  by 
gift  of  the  Father  in  Christ's  hand  is  to  be  in  the  Father's 
hand.  The  climax  of  security  is  the  Father's  Almightiness. 
But  if  Christ  is  Omnipotent  God,  as  truly  as  the  Father  is, 
the  reference  to  the  Father  does  not  heighten  the  assurance 
of  safe-keeping ;  the  Father's  guardianship  adds  no  protec 
tion,  and  the  Father's  giving  is  a  merely  formal  and  superfi 
cial,  if  not  quite  an  unintelligible,  consignment. 


280  PROFESSOR  NORTON'S  EXPLANATION. 

Surely  the  employment  of  the  neuter  numeral  —  in  literal 
English,  one  tiling  —  tells  rather  against  than  for  Mr.  Liddon's 
object.  If  the  masculine  or  feminine  form  had  been  employed, 
there  would  have  been,  so  far,  better  reason  for  our  surmising 
Essential  Oneness  to  have  been  predicated.  With  the  mas 
culine,  it  might  have  been  urged  that  God  was  the  noun  in 
agreement ;  with  the  feminine,  that  nature  should  be  sup 
plied.  And,  more  than  all,  the  text  would  then  have  been 
dissociated  from  those  other  texts  which  now  so  conclusively 
help  to  fix  its  meaning.  The  neuter  numeral  is  used  in  John 
xvii.  11,  21-23,  where  Jesus  prays  that  the  disciples  "may  be 
one  thing,  as  He  and  the  Father  are  one  thing?  It  is  used 
likewise  in  1  Cor.  iii.  8 :  "  He  that  planteth  and  He  that 
watereth  are  one  thing?  The  unity  between  the  Father  and 
the  Son  must,  moreover,  upon  any  tenable  explication,  be  of 
a  kind  not  at  variance  with  the  declared  facts,  that  the  Father 
Who  sent  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Only  True  God /  is  greater 
than  the  Son  •  and  that  the  Son  can  do  nothing  of  Himself . 
But  a  mind  of  thorough  ecclesiastical  culture  is,  perhaps, 
competent  to  bend  these  enigmatical  declarations  into  agree 
ment  with  the  profoundly  precise  significance  embodied  in 
the  neuter  gender  of  a  numeral. 

Some  observations,  in  the  course  of  which  Professor  Nor 
ton  refers  to  John  x.  30,  are  very  judicious,  and  capable  of 
general  application  in  the  exposition  of  the  Fourth  Gospel, 
if  exposition  is  to  be  conducted  on  reasonable  principles. 

"  Even  where  there  is  no  peculiar  boldness  or  strength  of 
expression  in  the  original,  we  are  liable  to  be  deceived  by  a 
want  of  analogy  to  our  modes  of  speech.  Figures  and  turns 
of  expression  familiar  in  one  language  are  strange  in  another ; 
and  an  expression  to  which  we  are  not  accustomed  strikes  us 
with  more  force,  and  seems  more  significant  than  one  in  com 
mon  use,  of  which  the  meaning  is  in  fact  the  same.  We  are 
very  liable  to  mistake  the  purport  of  words  which  appear 
under  an  aspect  unknown  or  infrequent  in  our  native  tongue. 
The  declaration,  I  and  My  Father  are  one,  may  seem  to  us 
at  first  sight  almost  too  bold  for  a  human  being  to  use  con- 


281 

cerning  God,  merely  because  we  are  not  accustomed  to  this 
expression  in  grave  discourse.  But  in  familiar  conversation 
no  one  would  misunderstand  me,  if,  while  transacting  some 
business  as  the  agent  of  a  friend,  I  should  say,  I  and  my 
friend  are  one;  meaning  that  I  am  fully  empowered  to 
act  as  his  representative"  (Statement  of  Reasons,  &c.,  Sec 
tion  7). 

Professor  Stuart,  arguing  for  the  Deity  of  Christ  against 
Channing,  wrote  ( Third  Letter),  — 

"  You  will  expect  me,  perhaps,  to  adduce  John  x.  30,  I 
and  My  Father  are  one.  It  is  a  clear  case  (?)  that  the  Jews 
here  seem  to  have  understood  Christ  as  claiming  equality 
with  God,  or  rather  claiming  to  be  God.  (See  verse  33.) 
But  I  am  not  satisfied  that  the  manner  in  which  they  often 
expounded  His  words  is  a  sure  guide  for  our  interpretation 
of  them  at  the  present  time.  The  malignant  disposition 
which  they  frequently  displayed  may  well  lead  us  to  suspect 
that  they  would,  if  possible,  put  such  a  construction  on  His 
words  as  would  subject  Him  to  the  imputation  of  blasphemy 
or  rebellion  against  the  Roman  government.  I  would  ex 
pound  the  words  of  Christ,  therefore,  independently  of  any 
construction  which  His  embittered  enemies  put  upon  them. 
And,  in  the  present  case,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  meaning  of, 
I  and  My  Father  are  one,  is  simply,  I  and  my  Father  are 
united  in  counsel,  design,  and  power." 

Union  in  power  does  not,  of  course,  denote  identity  of 
power,  or  possession  of  equal  energy  and  might,  but  co-op 
erative  union  for  a  common  end.  Identity  of  power  (quali 
tative  and  quantitative)  with  God  must,  in  strictness,  imply 
identity  of  Nature. 

To  the  authority  of  the  Jews  as  interpreters  of  Christ's 
sayings,  Mr.  Liddon  attaches  a  high  value.  He  repeats  the 
well-worn  adage,  so  pertinently  rebuking  the  Arians,  "  the 
Jews  understood  what  the  Arians  do  not  understand."  He 
knows,  and  presumes  the  Author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  to 
have  known,  how  greatly  malice  sharpens  the  moral  and 
intellectual  perceptions.  The  moral  disposition  of  the  Jews 


282  CHRIST   MISUNDERSTOOD   BY   THE   JEWS. 

accounts  for  the  superior  keenness  of  their  intelligence,  as 
compared  with  that  of  the  Apostles  and  disciples.  "  They 
understood  our  Lord  to  assume  Divine  honors,  and  proceeded 
to  execute  the  capital  sentence  decreed  against  blasphemy  by 
the  Mosaic  law.  His  words  gave  them  a  fair  ground  for 
saying  that,  '  being  Man,  He  made  Himself  God '  (ver. 
33)." 

Now  the  reply  of  Jesus  (ver.  36),  to  all  appearance,  testi 
fies  the  imputation  of  blasphemy  did  not  rest  specifically  on 
His  claiming  unity  with  God,  but  (as  in  an  instance  already 
discussed)  on  His  calling  God  in  some  special  sense  His 
Father.  The  Jews'  misconception,  real  or  feigned,  of 
the  saying,  I  and  My  Father  are  one,  was  therefore,  as  it 
would  seem,  less  gross  than  Mr.  Liddon's,  and  lie  cannot  be 
sure  he  is  sustained  by  their  reputable  alliance.  But  the 
answer  ascribed  to  Jesus,  if  it  was  not  studiedly  evasive  and 
diplomatic,  excludes  the  blunders  both  of  His  ancient  adver 
saries  and  His  modern  expositor.  He  referred  to  the  Origi 
nator  and  Cause  of  the  good  works  He  had  shown,  —  they 
were /row  (tx)  the  Father,  —  and  He  asked  for  which  of  these 
works  the  Jews  menaced  Him  (ver.  32).  They  answered 
"for  a  good  work  we  stone  thee  not,  but  for  blasphemy,  and 
because  thou,  being  a  man,  makest  thyself  a  god  "  (deog  with 
out  the  Article.  Observe  the  use  of  the  Article  with  Oso^ 
in  the  immediate  context,  and  compare  its  use  in  verse  18). 
The  sense  would  perhaps  be  more  accurately  conveyed  to  an 
English  ear,  by  because  thou,  being  human,  makest  thyself 
Superhuman  or  Divine.  Certainly  the  Jews  did  not  mean 
that  Jesus  affirmed  Himself  to  be  individually,  in  His. own 
person,  the  Almighty  One.  They  did  not,  even  with  their 
stimulated  insight,  detect  His  saying  to  be  in  effect,  "  I  am 
Jehovah,  the  God  of  Israel."  Such  depth  of  penetration  was 
a  stage  in  the  unfolding  of  Christian  discernment.  "  Jesus 
answered  them,  Is  it  not  written  in  your  law,  I  said  ye  are 
gods  f  If  he  called  them  gods  unto  whom  the  word  of  God 
came  (and  the  Scripture  cannot  be  made  void),  say  ye 
of  Him  whom  the  Father  sanctified  and  sent  unto  the 


CHRIST'S  REFERENCE  TO  PSALM  LXXXII.  6.         283 

world,  Thou  blasphemest ;    because  I  said  I  am  a  Son  of 
God  ?  "  * 

Psalm  Ixxxii.  has,  in  verse  1,  God  judgeth  among  gods ;  in 
verse  6,  I  said  ye  are  gods,  and  all  of  you  sons  of  the  Most 
High  (comp.  Luke  i.  32).  The  Septuagint  Version,  of  course, 
marks  the  distinction  between  the  God  and  gods,  by  prefix 
ing  and  omitting  the  Article.  The  reasoning,  such  as  it  is, 
in  connection  with  the  quotation  ascribed  to  our  Lord,  seem 
ingly  turns  upon  the  fact  that  gods  are  synonymous  witli 
sons  of  the  Most  High,  and  that  the  words  cited  would 
inevitably  recall  to  Jewish  minds  the  more  apposite  words 
left  uncited.  If  unjust  judges  could  be  called  gods  and  sons 
of  the  Highest,  He  whom  the  Father  had  consecrated  and 
sent  could  not  justly  incur  the  imputation  of  blasphemy  by 
calling  himself  a  son  of  God.  The  reasoning  implies  that 
Christ  would  not  have  blasphemed  had  He  called  Himself 
6eb^,  since  in  official  dignity  and  mission  He  was  superior  to 
those  who  were  in  Scripture  called  dsoi.  He  did  not,  how 
ever,  employ  that  title,  but  the  humbler  and  more  customary 
designation,  son  of  God,  which  could  then  only  be  equivalent 
to  dtog,  when,  as  in  the  instance  quoted,  the  appellation  was 
applied  in  some  lower,  relative,  representative  sense.  By 
assuming  Jesus  to  be  Very  God,  we  surrender  the  right  to 
criticise  any  words  which  we  hold  to  be  really  His,  but  if, 
being  truly  God,  He  could  use  the  language  quoted,  in  order 
to  evade  the  charge  of  claiming  to  be  what  lie  truly  was, 
then  clearly  the  Divine  standard  of  truthfulness  is  amon^ 
the  mysteries  of  the  Divine  Nature,  and  is  no  pattern  or 
standard  for  mankind.  Taking  for  granted  Mr.  Liddon's  two 
suppositions,  —  (1)  that  Jesus,  in  asserting  His  oneness  with 
the  Father,. intended  to  reveal  His  own  Deity;  (2)  that  the 
Jews  penetrated  His  meaning,  and  accordingly  accused  Him 

*  As  a  rule  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  Jesus,  when  naming  Himself  Son 
and  Son  of  God,  uses  the  Article ;  in  x.  36  He  does  not,  and  I  translate 
accordingly.  If  Son  of  God  was  a  familiar  and  recognized  Messianic 
title,  the  absence  of  the  Article  would  make  no  practical  difference,  unless 
the  context  supplied  reasons  for  supposing  that  the  omission  was  designed 
to  indicate  a  distinction  in  sense. 


284        UNDUE  DEDUCTION  FROM  THE  TEXT. 

of  identifying  Himself  with  the  Nature  of  the  Almighty,  — 
His  expostulation,  judged  by  the  rules  of  human  reason  and 
morality,  would  be  mere  guileful  evasion  and  deceit,  because 
it  carries  every  semblance  of  repudiating  an  imputation 
which,  upon  the  suppositions  above  stated,  was  in  all  main 
points  perfectly  legitimate  and  true.  No  honest  and  moder 
ately  intelligent  man,  deducing  from  Scripture  only,  would, 
I  think,  venture  to  affirm  our  Lord's  reply  was  calculated  to 
suo-jrest  to  His  hearers  the  sense :  "  I  am  indeed  God,  and 

&O  ' 

do  not  therefore  blaspheme  when  I  announce  my  Unity  in 
Nature  with  the  Father." 

But  Mr.  Liddon's  entire  argument,  apart  from  its  other  fal 
lacies,  appears  to  me  to  rest  on  the  substitution  of  a  fiction 
of  his  own  for  the  specific  reproach  urged  by  the  Jews,  who, 
according  to  the  terms  of  their  accusation,  and  of  our  Lord's 
answer,  censured  Him  because  He,  being,  as  they  considered, 
merely  human  (compare  John  vii.  27),  claimed  to  be  Super 
human,  by  claiming  to  be,  in  some  peculiar  sense,  Son  of 
God.  Good  declamation  is  wasted  in  the  sentences  :  — 

"  Who  then  shall  anticipate  the  horror  of  His  soul  or  the 
fire  of  His  words,  when  he  is  once  made  aware  of  the  ter 
rible  misapprehension  to  which  His  language  has  given  rise 
in  the  minds  around  Him:  'Thou,  being  a  man,  makest 
Thyself  God '  ?  The  charge  was  literally  true ;  being  hu 
man,  He  did  make  Himself  God.  Christians  believe  He 
only  'made'  Himself  That  which  He  is.  But  if  He  is  not 
God,  where  does  He  make  any  adequate  repudiation  of  a 
construction  of  His  words  so  utterly  derogatory  to  the  great 
Creator,  so  necessarily  abhorrent  to  a  good  man's  thought  ?  " 
(p.  199.) 

It  would  be  far  more  to  the  purpose  to  ask :  What  con 
ceivable  relevance  is  there  in  the  citation  from  the  language 
of  the  eighty-second  Psalm,  if  our  Lord's  relation  to  the 
Father  was  not  only  nearer  and  more  elevated  in  degree 
than,  but  utterly  different  in  kind  from,  that  of  the  theocratic 
chiefs  of  ancient  Israel  ?  Things  absolutely  diverse  in  kind 
are  not  mutually  illustrative,  except  in  the  hands  of  a  bad 


"  BEFORE    ABRAHAM    WAS,    T    AM."  285 

reasoner  or  a  cunning  verbal  trickster.  Here  again  Mr.  Lid- 
don,  unhappily  for  his  own  reputation,  shows  himself  to  be 
not  altogether  blind,  "  Our  Lord's  quotation  justified  His 
language  only,  and  not  His  full  meaning,  which,  upon  gain 
ing  the  ear  of  the  people,  He  again  proceeded  to  assert." 
The  imagined  re-assertion  is  in  the  remaining  clauses  of 
Christ's  vindication  of  Himself  from  the  reproach  of  blas 
phemy  :  "  If  I  do  not  the  works  of  My  Father,  believe  Me 
not.  But  if  I  do  them,  though  ye  believe  not  Me,  be 
lieve  the  works ;  that  ye  may  know  and  understand,  that 
the  Father  is  in  Me,  and  I  in  Him  "  (x.  37,  38).  The  con 
cluding  words  are,  to  Mr.  Liddon's  mind,  "expressive  of  our 
Lord's  sharing  not  merely  a  dynamical,  but  an  essential 
Unity  with  the  Father."  But,  presuming  the  words  to  have 
the  force  Mr.  Liddon  awards  to  them,  will  he  explain  the 
reciprocal  indwelling  'of  Christ  and  His  disciples,  as  enun 
ciated  in  John  vi.  56;  xiv.  20  ;  xv.  4;  xvii.  21,  23,  26  ;  and 
give  some  valid  reason  for  subjecting  phrases  of  one  and  the 
same  cast  to  totally  different  interpretations  ? 

Like  a  skilful  strategist,  Mr.  Liddon  gives  the  boldest  front 
to  arguments  of  more  than  ordinary  weakness.  In  treating 
the  words,  Before  Abraham  was,  I  am  (John  viii.  58),  he 
says : — 

"In  these  tremendous  words,  the  Speaker  institutes  a 
double  contrast,  in  respect  both  of  the  duration  and  of  the 
mode  of  His  existence,  between  Himself  and  the  great  an 
cestor  of  Israel.  Before  Abraham  icas  born.  Abraham, 
then,  had  come  into  existence  at  some  given  point  of  time. 
Abraham  did  not  exist  until  his  parents  gave  him  birth. 
But  I  am.  Here  is  simple  existence,  with  no  note  of  begin 
ning  or  end.  Our  Lord  says  not,  '  Before  Abraham  was,  I 
was,'  but  'I  am.'  He  claims  pre-existence  indeed,  but  He 
does  not  merely  claim  pre-existence  :  He  unveils  a  conscious 
ness  of  Eternal  Being.  He  speaks  as  One  on  Whom  time 
has  no  effect,  and  for  Whom  it  has  no  meaning.  He  is  the 
I  AM  of  ancient  Israel;  He  knows  no  past,  as  He  knows  no 
future ;  He  is  unbeginning,  unending  Being ;  He  is  the  eter- 


286  EXPOSITION   OF   A    PREJUDICED    MIND. 

nal  'Now.'  This  is  the  plain  sense  of  His  language,  and 
perhaps  the  most  instructive  commentary  upon  its  force  is 
to  be  found  in  the  violent  expedients  to  which  Humanitarian 
writers  have  been  driven  in  order  to  evade  it"  (pp.  187, 188). 

This  exposition  is  the  product  of  a  prejudiced  imagination, 
and  on  every  ground,  grammatical  and  other,  is  not  what 
the  guidance  of  Scripture  alone  suggests.  Before  it  can  be 
fairly  imposed,  the  doctrine  it  conveys  should  be  so  settled 
and  determined  as  to  invest  with  probability  a  merely  pos 
sible  sense.  As  regards  the  grammar,  the  present  tense  of 
the  verb  substantive  is  often,  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  and  else 
where  in  the  Sacred  Writings,  equivalent  to  the  past ;  for 
examples,  see  Greek,  in  John  v.  13,  15;  vi.  24,  64;  xii.  9; 
xiv.  9 ;  xv.  27 ;  xx.  14 ;  xxi.  4,  12 ;  Acts  ix.  26  (comp.  Sept. 
Psalm  Ixxxix.  2;  Jer.  i.  5).  Winer  makes  the  saying,  "Be 
fore  Abraham  was,  I  am,"  an  illustration  of  his  remark: 
"  Sometimes  a  Past  Tense  is  included  in  the  Present,  when, 
for  instance,  a  verb  expresses  a  state  which  commenced  at 
an  earlier  period,  but  still  continues  —  a  state  in  its  whole 
duration"  (Gram.  New  Test.,  Sec.  xl.  2).  The  rendering, 
^Before  Abraham  was  (or  was  born),  Ticas,  is  therefore  not 
merely  permissible,  but  so  highly  probable  that  weighty 
objections  are  required  to  exclude  it.  Jesus  claimed  pre- 
existence,  either  actual,  or  in  the  Mind  and  purposes  of  God. 
But  actual  pre-existence,  even  before  the  world  was  (xvii. 
5),  is  not  necessarily  the  Everlasting,  Uncaused  existence  of 
Deity ;  and  its  assertion,  taken  alone,  cannot  mount  higher 
than  the  Apocalyptic  title,  the  beginning  of  the  creation  of 
God  (Rev.  iii.  14). 

The  Gospel  "according  to  John"  must,  I  conceive,  be  ad 
mitted  both  to  affirm  and  imply  Christ's  veritable  pre-exist 
ence,  and,  therefore,  I  have  no  inclination  to  argue  that 
any  thing  less  than  really  antecedent  Being  is  the  more  prob 
able  sense  of  John  viii.  58.*  But  pre-existence  need  not,  as 

*  I  do  not  forget  how  facts  and  events  designed  and  pre-ordained  by 
the  Almighty  are  frequently  described  in  Scripture  as  though  they  had 
actually  existed  previously  to  their  realization.  Not  to  mention  examples 


BEARING    OF    EXODUS   III.    14.  287 

Mr.  Liddon  concedes,  imply  true  Divinity ;  and  the  attempt 
to  establish,  from  rational  and  Scriptural  considerations,  that 
the  words  in  question  mean  more  than  pre-existence,  must, 
in  any  hands,  be  a  ridiculous  failure. 

For  connecting  Christ's  saying  with  Exod.  iii.  14,  there  is 
absolutely  no  justification  whatever.  The  Hebrew  title  in 
that  passage  is  either,  I  am  What  I  am  ;  or  I  will  be  What 
I  will  be:  "say  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  I  Am,  or  I  Will 
.Be,  hath  sent,"  &c.  The  Septuagint  Version,  and  the  Vul 
gate,  render :  "  I  am  He  Who  is.  .  .  .  He  Who  is  hath 
sent,"  &G.  Now  the  distinctive  force  and  significance  of  the 
title  are  certainly  not  in  the  fragment  I  am,  but  either  in 
the  whole  title,  or  in  the  portion  He  Who  is.  The  supposi 
tion  that  Jesus  appropriated,  or  was  understood,  even  by  the 
Jews,  to  appropriate  a  most  sacred  and  peculiar  designation 
of  the  Self-existent,  Immutable  God,  is  too  arbitrary  and  im 
probable  to  merit  examination.  Take  I  am  as  a  designation 
of  the  Almighty  One,  equivalent  to  Jehovah,  and  the  saying 
of  Jesus  ceases  to  be  a  proposition :  "  Before  Abraham  was, 
Jehovah"  It  is  perfectly  futile  to  contend  Christ's  words 
had  the  same  force  as  if  He  had  said,  lam  Who  I  am  j  or 
I  am  lie  Who  is.  I  am  is  far  too  common  and  indispen 
sable  a  form  of  language  to  be  a  name  or  appellation,  and, 
when  more  than  a  bare  statement  of  existence,  must  be  sup 
plemented  into  a  proposition,  as  the  context  suggests.  And 
the  whole  connection  of  the  passage  demonstrates  that,  if 
more  was  intended  than  the  bare  affirmation  of  existence 
anterior  to  Abraham,  it  was  the  avowal  of  Messiah  ship. 

Beginning  at  verse  12,  we  learn  that  the  self-assertions  of 
Jesus  respecting  His  own  office,  relation  to  God,  and  mission 

from  the  Old  Testament,  see  Rom.  iv.  16,  17 ;  Eph.  i.  3,  4 ;  2  Tim.  i.  9 ; 
Tit.  i.  2 ;  Rev.  xiii.  8.  Language  of  this  type  is  characteristically  He 
braistic,  and  Professor  Norton  (Statement  of  Reasons,  £c.,  Third  Edition, 
p.  283)  illustrates  its  use  by  instances  from  Rabbinical  sources  ;  but  I 
cannot  doubt  that  the  writer  of  the  latest  Gospel  teaches  Christ's  pre- 
existence.  It  seems  to  me  as  unreasonable,  to  deny  he  teaches  Christ's 
pre-existence,  as  it  is  unreasonable  to  assert  he  teaches  Christ's  God 
head. 


288        THE  CONTEXT  EXPLAINS  THE  TEXT. 

from  Above,  elicited  from  the  sceptical  Jews  the  inquiry : 
"Who  art  thou?  And  Jesus  said  unto  them:  Even  what  I 
said  unto  you  from  the  beginning ; "  or,  according  to  a  pref 
erable  translation,  "Altogether  what  I  say  unto  you."  (I 
am  entirely  what  in  my  discourses  I  profess  to  be.  Winer, 
Sec.  liv.  1.)  Our  Lord  then  went  on  to  say,  that  "  He  did 
nothing  of  Himself,  but  was  instructed  and  sent  by  the 
Father,  and  had  the  Father's  presence  with  Him,  because  He 
did  always  those  things  which  pleased  the  Father"  (ver. 
25-30).  He  reproached  His  enemies  (ver.  40)  with  seeking 
to  kill  Him,  a  man  who  had  spoken  to  them  the  truth,  which 
He  had  heard  from  God ;  and  He  met  their  boast  that  God 
was  their  Father  with  the  reasoning,  "If  God  were  your 
Father,  ye  would  love  Me,  for  I  came  forth,  and  am  come 
from  God ;  neither  came  I  of  myself,  but  He  sent  Me"  (ver. 
42).  Having  upbraided  the  Jews  with  diabolical  parentage 
and  diabolical  deeds,  He  disclaimed  a  counter  charge  of 
having  a  devil,  and  said,  "  I  honor  my  Father,  and  ye  do 
dishonor  Me.  But  I  seek  not  my  own  glory ;  there  is  One 
that  seekoth  and  judgeth.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  if 
a  man  keep  my  saying  he  shall  never  see  death"  (ver.  49,  51). 
This  made  the  Jews  renew  their  abuse :  "  Now  we  know 
that  thou  hast  a  devil.  Abraham  died,  and  the  prophets ; 
and  thou  sayest  if  a  man  keep  my  saying  he  shall  never 
taste  death.  Art  thou  greater  than  our  father  Abraham, 
who  died  ?  and  the  prophets  died ;  whom  makest  thou  thy 
self  ?  "  According  to  the  Evangelist,  Jesus  answered,  "  If  I 
glorify  Myself,  my  glory  is  nothing;  it  is  my  Father  that 
glorifieth  me,  of  Whom  ye  say,  He  is  our  God :  and  ye  have 
not  known  Him ;  but  I  know  Him ;  and  if  I  should  say,  I 
know  Him  not,  I  shall  be  a  liar  like  unto  you;  but  I  know 
Him,  and  keep  His  saying.  Your  father  Abraham  rejoiged 
that  he  should  see  my  day;  and  he  saw  it  and  was  glad. 
The  Jews,  therefore,  said  unto  Him,  Thou  art  not  yet  fifty 
years  old,  and  hast  thou  seen  Abraham?  Jesus  said  unto 
them,  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  before  Abraham  was 


EXAMPLES    OF   THE   PHRASE,    "  I   AM."  289 

born,  I  am?  or,  amending  the  translation,  since  the  verb 
substantive  is  coupled  with  the  mention  of  past  time,  "  be 
fore  Abraham  was  born,  I  was"  (ver.  52-58).  Now,  only 
in  our  Lord's  character  of  Messiah  could  Abraham,  by  faith, 
have  "  seen  His  day,"  and  this  fact,  together  with  the  whole 
scope  of  the  context,  obliges  us,  if  we  regard  Christ's  asser 
tion  as  a  partially  expressed  proposition,  to  see  in  it  a  declar 
ation  of  Messiahship.  I  do  not  dwell  on  the  virtual  negations 
of  Godhead  with  which  the  context  must  be  admitted  to 
abound,  unless  it  was  dictated  by  an  inspiration  of  conceal 
ment  and  perplexity  paving  the  way  for  the  subsequent  and 
higher  revealing  functions  of  the  Church.  The  identical 
expression,  I  am,  occurs  in  this  very  same  eighth  chapter, 
and  in  other  places  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  in  a  manner  which 
alone  is  sufficient  to  evince  the  absurdly  untenable  nature  of 
the  interpretation  Mr.  Liddon  endeavors  to  enforce.  "  If  ye 
believe  not  that  I  am,  ye  shall  die  in  your  sins"  (ver.  24). 
"When  ye  have  lifted  up  the  Son  of  Man,  then  shall  ye 
know  that  I  am"  (ver.  28).  "Jesus  said  unto  her,  I  am, 
who  speak  unto  you"  (iv.  26).  "And  he  saith  unto  them, 
I  am  y  be  not  afraid"  (vi.  20).  "I  tell  you  before  it  come 
to  pass,  that,  when  it  is  come  to  pass,  ye  may  believe  that  I 
am"  (xiii.  19).  "Whom  seek  ye?  They  answered  Him, 
Jesus  of  Nazareth.  Jesus  saith  upon  them,  I  am.  As  soon 
then  as  He  said  unto  them,  I  am,  they  went  backward  and 
fell  to  the  ground.  He  asked  them,  therefore,  again,  Whom 
seek  ye  ?  And  they  said,  Jesus  of  Nazareth ;  Jesus  answered, 
I  told  you  that  I  am"  (xviii.  4-8).  In  all  these  instances, 
the  supplementary  idea  requisite  to  complete  the  sense  is 
unmistakably  indicated  by  the  context.  But  if  I  am  is  to 
be  understood  as  a  most  sacred  and  yet  familiar  Divine  title, 
then  according  to  Mark  xiii.  6,  and  Luke  xxi.  8,  the  false 
Christs  were  to  claim  Deity;  a  blind  man  also,  who  had  been 
healed,  used  dangerously  ambiguous  language  when  he  said, 
lam  (John  ix.  9;  comp.  Sept.  Isa.  xlvii.  8,  10). 

When  these  considerations  are  duly  Weighed,  "  the  plain 

19 


290  AN   UNWARRANTED    CONJECTURE. 

sense  of  Christ's  language "  is  seen  to  be  either  the  simple 
assertion  of  pre-Abrahamic  existence,  or  the  avowal  of 
Messiahship.  The  conjecture  of  an  intention  to  announce 
Eternal,  Self-existent  Being  is,  if  rationally  measured  by 
Scripture  evidence,  wildly  unwarranted  and  improbable. 


CHAPTER  X. 

Supposed  Evidence  that  the  Sanhedrim  condemned  Christ  for  claiming 
to  be  God.  —  The  Title  Son  of  God  never,  in  Jewish  estimation,  equiv 
alent  to  God,  or  more  than  a  Messianic  designation. — Force  of  the 
Exclamation  attributed  to  the  Apostle  Thomas  when  he  was  con 
vinced  of  Christ's  Resurrection.  —  The  Argument  from  certain  say 
ings  in  the  Synoptical  Gospels  assumed  to  be  closely  similar  to 
sayings  found  in  the  "  Gospel  according  to  John." —  Baseless,  repre 
hensible,  and  irreverent  character  of  the  Dilemma,  "  If  Jesus  Christ 
is  not  God,  He  is  not  morally  good." —  Language  ascribed  to  Christ 
Himself  is,  plainly  and  often,  not  rationally  reconcilable  with  the 
Dogma  of  His  Godhead. 

WITH  his  accustomed  hardihood,  Mr.  Liddon  affirms  :  "  Noth 
ing  is  more  certain  than  that,  whatever  was  the  dominant 
motive  that  prompted  our  Lord's  apprehension,  the  Sanhe 
drim  condemned  Him  because  He  claimed  Divinity.  The 
members  of  the  court  stated  this  before  Pilate,  "  We  have  a 
law,  and  by  our  law  He  ought  to  die,  because  He  made  Him 
self  the  Son  of  God"  (St.  John  xix.  7).  Their  language 
would  have  been  meaningless  if  they  had  understood  by  the 
"  Son  of-God  "  nothing  more  than  the  ethical  or  theocratic  Son- 
ship  of  their  own  ancient  Kings  and  saints.  If  the  Jews  held 
Christ  to  be  a  false  Messiah,  a  false  prophet,  a  blasphemer,  it 
was  because  He  claimed  literal  Divinity.  True,  the  Messiah 
was  to  have  been  Divine.  But  the  Jews  had  secularized  the 
Messianic  promises  ;  and  the  Sanhedrim  held  Jesus  Christ  to 
be  worthy  of  death  under  the  terms  of  the  Mosaic  law,  as 
expressed  in  Leviticus  and  Deuteronomy  (Lev.  xxiv.  16; 
Deut.  xiii.  5)."  [For  the  very  doubtful  appropriateness  of 
these  references,  consult  the  passages  themselves.]  "  After 
the  witnesses  had  delivered  their  various  and  inconsistent  tes 
timonies,  the  high  priest  arose  and  said,  '  I  adjure  Thee  by  the 
living  God,  that  Thou  tell  us  whether  Thou  be  the  Christ, 


292  WHY   THE   SANHEDRIM 

the  Son  of  God.  Jesus  saith  unto  him,  Thou  hast  said ; 
nevertheless,  I  say  unto  you,  Hereafter  shall  ye  see  the  Son 
of  Man  sitting  on  the  right  hand  of  power,  and  coming  in 
the  clouds  of  heaven.  Then  the  high  priest  rent  his  clothes, 
saying,  He  hath  spoken  blasphemy'  (St.  Matt.  xxvi.  63-65). 
The  blasphemy  did  not  consist  either  in  the  assumption  of 
the  title  Son  of  Man,  or  in  the  claim  to  be  Messiah,  or  even, 
excepting  indirectly,  in  that  which  by  the  terms  of  Daniel's 
prophecy  was  involved  in  Messiahship,  namely,  the  commis 
sion  to  judge  the  world.  It  was  the  further  claim  to  be  the 
Son  of  God,  not  in  any  moral  or  theocratic,  but  in  the  natural 
sense,  at  which  the  high  priest  and  his  coadjutors  professed 
to  be  so  deeply  shocked.  The  Jews  felt,  as  our  Lord  intended, 
that  the  Son  of  Man  in  Daniel's  prophecy  could  not  but  be 
Divine ;  they  knew  what  he  meant  by  appropriating  such 
words  as  applicable  to  Himself"  (pp^.190,  191). 

Here,  again,  there  are  traces  that  Mr.  Liddon  sees  the  diffi 
culty,  which  by  a  clever  exercise  of  his  talent  for  special  plead- 
ership  he  endeavors  to  disguise.  In  what  acceptation  could 
the  Jews  have  felt  that  the  Son  of  Man,  as  described  in  Dan. 
vii.  13,  14,  was  Divine  ?  He  is  not  put  on  an  equality  with 
the  Ancient  of  Days  ;  there  is  no  particle  of  excuse  for  iden 
tifying  Him  with  the  Most  High  ;  and  there  is  nowhere  any 
approach  to  evidence  that  in  Jewish  estimation  either  Son  of 
Man  or  Son  of  God  meant  God  in  the  full,  true,  proper 
sense  of  the  term  as  applied  by  the  Jews  to  Jehovah,  the 
Sole  Personal  Object  of  their  faith  and  worship.  What  is 
"  the  natural  sense  "  of  the  term  Son  in  relation  to  God  ? 
and  where  in  the  Canon  of  Scripture  is  there  any  shadow 
of  warrant  for  understanding  the  term  to  denote  a  relation 
different  in  kind  from  that  of  produced  intelligent  Beings, 
either  celestial  or  human?  Will  Mr.  Liddon  deny  the 
strictest  Monotheism  to  have  been  the  fundamental  basis  of 
Jewish  conceptions  of  the  Divine  Entity;  and,  if  he  will  not, 
what  sort  of  Co-eternal,  Co-equal,  Consubstantial,  and  yet 
distinctly  Personal  Sonship,  does  he  hold  to  be  —  I  do  not 
say  familiarly,  but  possibly  —  associable  with  a  scrupulously 


CONDEMNED     CHRIST.  293 

jealous  faith  in  One  God  ?  The  chief  priests  and  rulers  may 
have  thought  Christ  to  be  guilty  of  blasphemy  when  He 
hinted  at,  or  alleged,  the  possession  of  Sonship  in  an  ante 
cedent  celestial  nature,  because  such  an  allegation  involved 
high  claims  to  deference  and  authority  as  the  Ambassador 
and  Representative  of  God.  Such  claims  would  appear  to 
them  impious  intrusions  into  the  sphere  of  the  Divine  gov 
ernment,  and  therefore  derogatory  to  the  Divine  honor,  but 
there  is  no  pretext  for  supposing  even  the  blundering  spite 
attributed  to  Jews  to  have  been  so  blundering  as  to  charge 
Jesus  with  arrogating  to  Himself  identity  with  the  Eternal 
One. 

Mr.  Liddon,  in  common  with  many  controversialists  on  his 
side,  indulges  in  the  conjecture  that  the  inquiry,  "tell  us 
whether  thou  be  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God "  (Matt.  xxvi. 
63),  does  not  intimate  that,  in  the  opinion  of  the  high  priest, 
the  Christ  was  the  Son  of  God.  He  presumes  the  titles  to 
be  distinct,  and  our  Lord  to  have  claimed  them  both  in  their 
separate  meanings.  The  word  and,  which  ought  to  have 
stood  between  the  titles,  is  unfortunately  missing ;  but  the 
requirements  of  Orthodox  argument  show  us  how  to  correct 
a  clause  which  has  no  various  readings.  In  his  reply  (ver. 
64,  and  Mark  xiv.  62),  Jesus  takes  the  undoubtedly  Messianic 
appellation,  Son  of  Man,  which,  combined  with  the  form 
of  the  imputation  in  John  xix.  7,  implies  that  Son  of  Man 
and  Son  of  God  were  both  recognized  Messianic  designations. 
The  record  in  Luke  xxii.  69,  70,  is  varied ;  and  the  announce 
ment,  "  the  Son  of  Man  will  be  seated  on  the  right  hand  of 
the  power  of  God,"  at  once  evokes  from  the  whole  assembled 
council  the  demand,  "Art  thou  then  the  Son  of  God?" 
plainly  suggesting  that  Son  of  God  was,  in  the  opinion  of 
the  Sanhedrim,  a  Messianic  title. 

From  Matt,  xxvii.  54,  we  learn  how,  "  when  the  centurion, 
and  they  that  were  with  him  watching  Jesus,  saw  the  earth 
quake,  and  those  things  that  were  done,  they  feared  greatly, 
saying,  Truly  this  was  the  Son  of  God."  Are  we  to  suppose 
them  to  have  meant  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  or  that  He 


294  THE   PHRASE, 

was  God?  By  St.  Mark's  narrative  (xv.  39)  the  saying  is 
ascribed  to  the  centurion  alone,  and  he  is  made  to  say  ex 
plicitly,  "  truly  this  Man  was  the  Son  of  God ; "  a  form  of 
speech  which  may  be  a  recognition  of  Messiahship,  but  is 
hardly  a  recognition  of  Deity.  St.  Luke's  narrative  (xxiii. 
47)  makes  the  centurion  say,  "  certainly  this  man  was  right 
eous."  It  is  to  be  regretted  the  circumstances  of  the  case 
forbid  the  application  of  the  ordinary  process  for  reconciling 
differences,  and  will  not  permit  us  to  maintain  all  the  inspired 
accounts  to  be  verbatim  accurate,  the  centurion  and  those 
with  him  having  spoken  once,  and  the  centurion  alone  twice. 

The  derisive  taunts  of  the  passers-by,  and  of  the  mocking 
priests  and  scribes,  are  related  by  the  three  Synoptists  with 
a  general,  but  by  no  means  minute,  agreement  (Matt,  xxvii. 
40-43;  Mark  xv.  29-32;  Luke  xxiii.  35-37).  The  assertors 
of  verbal  inspiration,  no  doubt,  have  harmonizing  expedients 
capable  of  eliminating  all  appearance  of  discrepancy  in  details, 
but,  assuming  the  verbal  exactness  of  St.  Matthew's  record, 
there  is  an  utter  absence  of  indication  that  Son  of  God  was 
equivalent  to  God,  or  other  than  a  Messianic  description. 

I  may  add  :  the  Fourth  Gospel  —  Mr.  Liddon's  paramount 
authority  when  obscurities  are  to  be  illuminated  —  to  some 
extent  witnesses  the  Jews  had  not  so  "  secularized  the  Messi 
anic  promises"  as  to  popularize  the  notion  that  Christ  was 
not  to  be  Superhuman.  "  We  know  this  man  whence  he  is ; 
but  when  the  Christ  corneth,  no  man  knoweth  whence  He  is" 
(John  vii.  27),  are  words  which  can  hardly  point  to  the  place 
of  Christ's  birth  (comp.  vers.  41,  42).  The  aim  of  the  Gospel, 
as  stated  in  the  concluding  words  of  the  twentieth  chapter, 
is  to  create  the  belief  "  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God"  where  the  discriminative  and  is  again  wanting.  See 
also  John  xi.  27,  with  which  read  verse  22. 

In  seeking  to  ascertain  what  was,  in  Christ's  own  earthly 
lifetime,  the  full  meaning  of  the  phrase  Son  of  God,  as 
descriptive  of  Him,  we  cannot  overlook  that  confession  of 
St.  Peter's,  which  was,  according  to  the  First  Gospel,  though 
not  according  to  the  others,  made  in  the  words :  Thou  art 


A    MESSIANIC   TITLE.  295 

the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God  (Matt.  xvi.  16 ;  comp. 
Mark  viii.  29 ;  Luke  ix.  20 ;  John  vi.  69,  with  correct  read 
ing).  Mr.  Liddon  assumes  the  verbal  fidelity  of  St.  Mat 
thew's  single  record,  and  argues :  — 

"  If  St.  Peter  had  intended  only  to  repeat  another  and  a 
practically  equivalent  title  of  the  Messiah,  he  would  not  have 
equalled  the  earlier  confession  of  a  Nathaniel  (John  i.  49). 
or  have  surpassed  the  subsequent  admission  of  a  Caiaphas 
(Matt.  xxvi.  63).  If  we  are  to  construe  his  language  thus,  il 
is  altogether  impossible  to  conceive  why 'flesh  and  blood' 
could  not  have  '  revealed '  to  him  so  obvious  and  trivial  an 
inference  from  his  previous  knowledge,  or  why  either  the 
Apostle  or  his  confession  should  have  been  solemnly  desig 
nated  as  the  selected  Rock  on  which  the  Redeemer  would 
build  His  imperishable  Church"  (p.  11).  But  difficulties  too 
formidable  to  be  ignored,  without  moral  discredit,  lie  in  the 
way  of  this  bold  assumption.  Not  only  are  the  words,  /Son 
of  the  living  G-od,  no  part  of  St.  Peter's  confession  as  reported 
by  three  Evangelists,  but  the  one  Evangelist  who  does  report 
them,  makes  them,  to  all  appearance,  a  practical  equivalent, 
or  at  most  an  explanatory  extension,  of  Messiah's  name.  The 
confession  is  not  "the  Christ  and  the  Son."  The  significance 

O 

introduced  by  separating  the  designations  is  entirely  the 
achievement  of  interpretation.  Our  Lord  Himself,  by  the 
plain  tenor  of  the  narrative,  saw  in  Peter's  words  an  acknowl 
edgment  of  Messiahship,  and  charged  His  disciples  that  they 
should  tell  no  one  He  was  the  Christ  (Matt.  xvi.  20 ;  comp. 
Mark  viii.  30 ;  Luke  ix.  21).  The  Fourth  Gospel,  it  must  be 
conceded,  makes  the  knowledge  of  His  Messiahship  familiar, 
and  relates  how  He  had  Himself,  from  the  very  commence 
ment  of  His  ministry,  proclaimed  in  the  freest  way  His  Mes 
sianic  character.  There  is,  in  fact,  a  glaring  and  irremovable 
discrepancy  on  this  topic,  between  the  last  written  and  the 
earlier  Gospels,  and  to  utilize  any  feature  of  this  discrepancy, 
in  the  elucidation  of  Peter's  confession,  is  a  remarkable  stroke 
of  expository  daring  and  skill.  But  if  St.  Peter,  in  making 
the  solemn,  profoundly  significant,  and  heaven-inspired  reply, 


296  THE   EXCLAMATION   ASCRIBED    TO    THOMAS. 

which  only  one  Evangelist  has  correctly  transmitted,  meant 
all  that  Mr.  Liddon  imagines,  how  are  we  to  explain  the  cir 
cumstance  that  neither  he  nor  any  of  "  the  other  disciples  in 
whose  name  he  replied  "  ever  exhibited  the  awe-struck  vener 
ation  of  men  who  knew  the  Master  whose  companions  they 
were  to  be  Very  God,  the  Almighty  Father's  Equal,  in  human 
form  ?  Where  is  there,  in  the  recorded  conduct  of  Apostles 
and  disciples,  a  single  trace  of  the  effect  which  the  strong 
suspicion,  not  to  say  the  faith,  that  Jesus  Christ  was  indeed 
the  Eternal  God,  must  inevitably  have  produced  ?  That  His 
first  followers  loved  and  revered  their  Great  Master,  believing 
Him  to  have  been  sent  by  God,  and  to  have  God  with  Him, 
will  not  be  disputed,  but  that  they  believed  Him  to  be  Him 
self  God  is  a  conclusion  which  the  Evangelical  Histories 
absolutely  refuse  to  yield. 

Surveying  the  facts  to  which  I  have  referred,  it  is,  I  think, 
quite  manifestly  a  gratuitous  and  untenable  opinion  that  the 
Jews  employed,  or  supposed  our  Lord  to  have  employed, 
the  title  Son  of  God  to  signify  "  literal  Divinity,"  that  is, 
possession  of  the  One  Eternal,  Uncreated,  Omnipotent 
Nature.  And  if  Caiaphas,  and  his  fellow  priests  and  rulers, 
had  employed  it  in  this  sense,  in  what  respect  would  Peter's 
confession  have  "  surpassed  their  admission  "  ?  In  his  Fourth 
Lecture,  Mr.  Liddon  contends  that  members  of  the  Sanhe 
drim  saw  what  he  conceives  to  have  been  the  full  sense  of  the 
designation  Son  of  God,  and  condemned  Christ  for  claiming 
to  be  Divine  (i.e.,  God) ;  but,  in  his  First  Lecture,  he  refers 
to  the  language  of  Caiaphas  (Matt.  xxvi.  63)  as  of  more  cir 
cumscribed  meaning  than  Peter's  confession.  Is  there  not 
inconsistency  here  ? 

The  exclamation  ascribed  to  Thomas,  My  Lord,  and  my 
God  (John  xx.  28),  Mr.  Liddon  (Lect.  vii.)  calls  an  adoring 
confession,  and  pre-eminently  the  language  of  adoration.  If 
he  concludes  Thomas  to  have  been  convinced  Jesus  was  the 
Lord  God  Himself,  and  to  have  expressed  the  conviction, 
he  defies  every  inference  which  the  context  suggests.  The 
evidence  offered  to  Thomas  was  not  evidence  that  Jesus  was 


DESCRIPTIONS   OF   GODHEAD.  297 

God,  but  that  Jesus  had  risen  from  the  grave.  The  fact 
which  the  faith  of  the  previously  unconvinced  Apostle  recog 
nized  was  the  fact  of  Christ's  Resurrection.  Does  that  fact 
prove  Christ  to  be  God?  Our  Lord  accepted  the  acknowl 
edgment  in  strict  relation  to  the  circumstances  out  of  which 
it  grew,  and  pronounced  a  blessing  not  on  those  who  with 
out  having  seen  His  wounded  body  believe  He  is  the  Immor 
tal  God,  but  on  those  who  without  having  seen  believe 
He  rose  again  from  the  dead.  If  after  His  Resurrection, 
or  at  any  period  of  their  intercourse  with  our  Lord  on 
earth,  all  or  any  of  His  Apostles  entertained  the  persuasion 
they  were  associating  with  their  God  and  Creator,  their  state 
of  mind  must  have  imprinted  deeply  corresponding  marks 
upon  their  conduct  But,  beyond  dispute,  such  marks  are 
totally  wanting,  and  against  the  absence  of  them  the  isolated 
phraseology  of  an  excited  exclamation  cannot  for  one  moment 
be  rationally  set. 

If  the  Absolute  G-ood  and  the  Absolute  Truth  are  compre 
hensive  descriptions  of  Godhead,  then  it  is  an  error  to  fancy 
descriptions  synonymous  with  them  are  applied  to  Christ  in 
the  Fourth  Gospel ;  and  a  double  misrepresentation  to  say, 
as  Mr.  Liclclon  does,  in  his  Fifth  Lecture  :  "  When  we  weigh 
the  language  of  the  first  three  Evangelists,  it  will  be  found 
that  Christ  is  represented  by  it  as  the  Absolute  Good  and  the 
Absolute  Truth  not  less  distinctly  than  in  St.  John."  To 
support  this  misrepresentation  we  have  some  choice  speci 
mens  of  exposition.  "  It  is  on  this  account  that  He  is  exhi 
bited  as  in  conflict,  not  with  subordinate  or  accidental  forms 
of  evil,  but  with  the  evil  principle  itself  with  the  Prince  of 
Evil.  'I  beheld  Satan  as  lightning  fallen  from  heaven' 
(St.  Luke  x.  18).  The  temptation  by  Satan  (St.  Matt.  iv. 
1-11)  :  'If  I  cast  out  devils  by  the  Spirit  of  God,'  &c.  (St. 
Matt.  xii.  27-29).  'The  field  is  the  world;  the  good  seed 
are  the  children  of  the  kingdom,  but  the  tares  are  the  chil 
dren  of  the  wicked  one,'  &c.  (xiii.  38,  39) "  (p.  251). 

Read  the  passages  referred  to,  as  they  stand  in  the  Gospels, 
and  the  ridiculous  folly  of  connecting  them,  even  indirectly, 


298  SUPPOSED    IMPLICATION    OF   DEITY 

with  claims  to  Godhead  or  inferences  of  Godhead,  is  palpa 
ble.  If  Mr.  Liddon  was  so  disinterested  as  to  have  no  respect 
for  his  own  intellectual  reputation,  when  he  devoted  himself 
to  the  occupation  of  defending  from  untenable  grounds  the 
Church's  faith,  he  might  have  respected  his  audience.  But 
he  goes  on,  in  the  same  strain  :  "  And,  as  the  Absolute  Good, 
Christ  tests  the  moral  worth  or  worthlessiiess  of  men  by 
their  acceptance  or  rejection,  not  of  His  doctrine,  but  of  His 
Person.  It  is  St.  Matthew  who  records  such  sentences  as 
the  following:  'Be  not  ye  called  Rabbi;  for  One  is  your 
Master,  even  Christ '  (xxiii.  8) ;  '  He  that  loveth  father  or 
mother  more  than  Me  is  not  worthy  of  Me '  (x.  37) ; 
'  Whosoever  shall  confess  Me  before  men,  him  will  I  con 
fess  also  before  My  Father'  (x.  32  ;  St.  Luke  xii.  8)  ;  c  Come 
unto  Me,  all  ye  that  labor,  and  I  will  give  you  rest ;  Take 
My  yoke  upon  you,  and  learn  of  Me '  (xi.  28,  29).  In  St. 
Matthew,  then,  Christ  speaks  as  One  Who  knows  Himself 
to  be  a  universal  and  infallible  Teacher  in  spiritual  things ; 
Who  demands  submission  of  all  men,  and  at  whatever  cost  or 
sacrifice ;  Who  offers  to  mankind  those  deepest  consolations 
which  are  sought  from  all  others  in  vain.  Nor  is  it  other 
wise  with  St.  Luke  and  St.  Mark"  (p.  252). 

Differences  of  reading  are  here  of  little  moment,  but  Mr. 
Liddon  must  be  aware  the  probably  true  reading  in  the  first 
of  the  texts  he  quotes  is,  "  Be  not  ye  called  Rabbi ;  for  One 
is  your  Teacher  (fotfacrxttAot,')."  The  name  Christ  is  not  men 
tioned,  and  our  Lord  went  on  consecutively,  "  And  all  ye 
are  brethren.  And  call  none  your  father  upon  the  earth ;  for 
One  is  your  Father,  the  Heavenly.  Neither  be  ye  called 
leaders ;  *  for  one  is  your  Leader,  the  Christ."  The  highest 
title  and  the  supreme  honor  are  reserved  for  the  Father  in 
heaven.  The  disciples  are  forbidden  to  be  like  the  self- 
exalting  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  in  appropriating  names  of 
authority  and  distinction  ;  and,  in  matters  of  religion  and 

*  The  term  used  may  be  Guide,  Leader,  or  Teacher.  To  mark  the 
difference  from  the  other  term  (ver.  8),  I  give  the  more  radical  and  literal 
meaning. 


IN    CERTAIN   SYNOPTICAL   SAYINGS.  299 

conscience,  they  are  forbidden  to  recognize  any  right  to 
childlike,  implicit  obedience,  except  the  right  of  God.  The 
appellation  they  are  forbidden  to  give  is  manifestly,  in  its 
spiritual  aspect,  of  higher  import  than  the  customary  precep 
torial  appellations  they  are  forbidden  to  accept ;  and  I  am 
at  a  loss  to  understand  why  Mr.'Liddon  should  have  referred 
to  the  passage,  unless  he  hoped  to  catch  the  ear  with  a  sem 
blance  of  argument  unfit  for  the  mind  to  investigate. 

Matt.  x.  32  and  37  are,  of  course,  to  be  studied  with  their 
contexts.  They  demand  confession  of  Christ,  and  self-deny 
ing  submission  to  Him,  as  the  God-sent  Messenger  and 
Instructor,  and  they  stand  in  a  connection  which  clearly 
points  to  One  greater  and  more  exalted  than  Christ  —  even 
the  Father  in  heaven  Who  sent  Him.  Our  Lord  enforces 
the  duty  of  receiving  those  whom  He  sends,  by  the  state 
ment,  "He  that  rcceiveth  you  receiveth  Me,  and  he  that 
receiveth  Me  receiveth  Him  Who  sent  Me"  (ver.  40),  where 
He  either  identifies  His  messengers  with  Himself  in  the  same 
way  in  which  He  identifies  Himself  with  the  Father,  or  He 
implies  that,  as  He  is  superior  to  His  messengers,  so  the 
Father  by  Whom  He  was  sent  is  superior  to  Him.  No  other 
interpretation  is  possible,  unless  we  are  able  to  bring  in,  from 
extraneous  sources,  clear  light  and  fixed  conclusion. 

In  making  a  joint  reference  to  Luke  xii.  8,  did  Mr.  Liddon 
fail  to  notice  how  the  confession  on  the  part  of  the  Son  of 
Man  is  there  said  to  be,  before  the  angels  of  God,  instead  of, 
as  in  Matthew,  before  my  Father  Who  is  in  Heaven  ? 

In  studying  Matthew  xi.  28,  29,  the  surroundings  of  the 
passage  must  again  be  our  guide.  Perhaps  it  is  enough  to 
add  the  clause  Mr.  Liddon  omits :  because  I  am  meek  and 
lowly  in  heart  /  and  to  ask  with  relation  to  whom  this  meek 
ness  and  humility  existed.  If  they  existed  towards  God, 
then  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  the  text,  in  which  they  are 
adduced  as  reasons  for  taking  Christ's  yoke  and  learning  of 
Him,  can  at  all  help  to  bring  into  view  His  Personal  God 
head.  Are  not  the  words  learn  of  Me,  &c.,  explanatory  of 
the  preceding  invitation  and  promise,  and  indicative  of  one 


300  SUPPOSED    IMPLICATION    OF    DEITY 

whose  standing  is  that  of  Instructor  and  Example,  not  that 
of  Omnipotent  Sovereign  and  Benefactor?  Only  by  an 
intellect  rarely  gifted,  or  peculiarly  conformed,  can  the  pas 
sage  be  perceived  to  involve  claims  of  Deity. 

"If  the  title  of  Divinity  is  more  explicitly  put  forward  in 
St.  John,  the  rights  which  imply  it  are  insisted  on  in  words 
recorded  by  the  earlier  Evangelists.  The  Synoptists  repre 
sent  our  Lord,  Who  is  the  object  of  Christian  faith  no  less 
than  the  Founder  of  Christianity,  as  designing  the  whole 
world  for  the  field  of  Hfcs  conquests  (St.  Matt,  xxviii.  19 ;  St. 
Mark  xvi.  15 ;  St.  Luke  xxiv.  47 ;  comp.  St.  Matt.  xiii.  32, 
38,  41 ;  xxiv.  14),  and  as  claiming  the  submission  of  every 
individual  human  soul.  All  are  to  be  brought  to  disciple- 
ship.  Only  then  will  the  judgment  come,  when  the  Gospel 
has  been  announced  to  the  whole  circle  of  the  nations  (St. 
Matt.  xxiv.  14).  Christ,  the  Good  and  the  Truth  Incarnate, 
must  reign  throughout  all  time  (St.  Luke  xxii.  69).  He 
knows,  according  to  the  Synoptists  no  less  than  St.  John, 
that  He  is  a  perfect  and  final  Revelation  of  God.  He  is  the 
Centrepoint  of  the  history  and  of  the  hopes  of  man.  None 
shall  advance  beyond  Him ;  the  pretension  to  surpass  Him  is 
but  the  symptom  of  disastrous  error  and  reaction  (St.  Matt, 
xxiv.  23-26,  &c.)  "  (pp.  252,  253). 

That  Jesus,  conscious  of  His  own  mission  from  God,  and 
of  the  adaptation  to  the  needs  of  Humanity  of  the  few  but 
pregnant  spiritual  and  ethical  precepts  which  He  promul 
gated,  may  have  looked  forward  to  the  universal  spreading 
of  His  religion,  is,  doubtless,  what  might  be  expected ;  but 
the  texts  to  which  Mr.  Liddon  refers  are  not,  I  think,  suffi 
cient  to  prove  that  our  Lord  either  explicitly  announced  the 
universal  diffusion  of  Christianity,  or  enjoined  His  disciples 
to  preach  to  all  the  nations  of  the  earth.  The  whole  con 
text  around  Matt.  xxiv.  14,  on  which  Mr.  Liddon  relies,  goes 
to  show  that  the  end  there  was  not  a  final  judgment,  but  a 
very  proximate  event;  and  the  phrase  employed  for  world  is 
really  only  commensurate  with  the  inhabited  parts  known  to 
the  Jews  —  at  most,  the  Roman  Empire ;  and  yet  the  pro- 


IN    CERTAIN    SYNOPTICAL   SAYINGS.  301 

mulgation  of  the  Gospel  in  this  comparatively  narrow  sphere, 
is  said  to  be  for  a  witness  to  all  the  nations.  The  preaching 
of  the  Gospel  among  all  the  nations  (Luke  xxiv.  47)  is  not, 
therefore,  language  altogether  conclusive  as  to  definite  designs, 
and  express  injunctions  to  make  the  whole  globe  the  field  of 
Christianity.  But  I  have  already  touched  upon  this  subject, 
and  need  not  repeat  reasons,  more  particularly  as  its  bearing 
upon  the  theme  of  Mr.  Liddon's  Lectures  is  very  indirect. 
The  universality  of  Christ's  religion,  if  it  were  at  this  moment 
absolutely  universal,  would  not  aid  in  proving  His  Deity,  un 
less  the  dogma  of  His  Deity  were  demonstrably  an  integral 
portion  of  His  religion. 

Before  deducing  copiously  and  exactingly  from  Matt.  xxviiL 
19,  any  Protestant  controversialist  is  bound  to  recognize,  and 
endeavor  to  remove,  the  discrepancy  which  exists :  (1)  be 
tween  that  passage  and  the  sentiments  and  conduct  of  the 
Apostles  relative  to  the  admission  of  the  Gentiles  into  the 
Christian  Church  (see  Acts  x.  and  xi.)  ;  and  (2)  between 
that  passage  and  every  other  notice  of  the  formula  for  Chris 
tian  Baptism  which  is  found  in  the  New  Testament.  The 
arguments  I  have  already  advanced  on  this  point  are  merely 
the  expression  of  ordinary  fairness  and  common  sense.  They 
are  too  obvious  and  inevitable  not  to  have  been  well  known 
to  Mr.  Liddon,  and  until  they  are  met  it  is  worse  than  useless 
to  talk  of  "  self-intrusion  into  the  sphere  of  Divinity,"  and  to 
tell  us  Jesus  "  deliberately  inserts  His  own  Name  into  the 
sacramental  formula ;  He  inserts  it  between  that  of  the  Fa 
ther  and  that  of  the  Spirit."  Baptism  "into  the  Name  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  was  the 
common  practice  of  the  Church  early  in  the  second  century, 
so  far  as  the  scanty  evidence  we  possess  reveals  her  practice  : 
but,  by  every  rule  of  reasonable  interpretation,  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles  and  the  Epistles  attest  Baptism  to  have  been  at 
the  first  administered  with  another  and  a  simpler  formula. 
Words  of  solemn  command  and  instruction,  uttered  by  the 
risen  Jesus  Himself,  would  not  be  forgotten  or  disobeyed,  and 
therefore  only  one  conclusion  remains  :  the  words  are  not 


302  SUPPOSED   IMPLICATION   OF   DEITY 

really  His,  though  found  in  every  known  MS.  and  Version 
of  the  First  Gospel.  It  is  pretty  certain  St.  Matthew's  Gos 
pel  was  originally  written  in* the  Hebrew  dialect.  In  being 
transferred  to  Greek  the  document  may  have  received  ad 
ditions,  and  for  such  additions  the  endings  of  sections  and 
discourses  would  present  the  most  favorable  points.  The 
exact  date  of  the  present  Greek  Gospel  cannot  be  determined ; 
neither  the  extent  of  its  correspondence  with,  nor  deviation 
from,  the  lost  Hebrew  original.  We  ought  not  causelessly  to 
suspect  modifications  or  enlargement;  but  the  circumstance 
that  the  Canonical  Matthew  is  a  translation  renders  modifica 
tions  and  additions  to  some  extent  highly  probable,  and  in  them 
the  candid  investigator  will  believe  he  has  the  most  rational 
explanation  of  discrepancies.  Dr.  Davidson  considers  :  "  The 
baptismal  formula  and  some  other  passages  prevent  the  critic 
from  putting  the  Canonical  Gospel  before  A.D.  100."  Nean- 
der,  who  in  his  "  Life  of  Christ "  surrendered  nothing  which 
could  with  any  sort  of  prudence  or  plausibility  be  retained, 
evidently  had  very  grave  doubts  respecting  the  accuracy  of 
Matt,  xxviii.  19,  and  practically  admits  the  text  to  be  unau- 
thentic,  though  he  wraps  his  meaning  in  a  verbal  haze,  and, 
after  the  manner  of  an  Orthodox  Protestant  in  difficulties, 
shuns  straightforwardness. 

But,  if  the  text  were  undoubtedly  genuine,  it  would  not 
necessarily  be  an  announcement  of  a  Trinity  of  Persons,  Co- 
eternal  and  Co-equal.  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in  Unity 
would,  indeed,  be  a  fair  exposition,  provided  that  unfathoma 
ble  paradox  were  so  stated  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament 
as  to  intimate  its  having  had  a  place  in  the  professed  faith 
of  the  early  believers.  Without  this  sustaining  statement, 
the  reasonable  expositor  of  Scripture  will  not  think  himself 
warranted  to  see  in  the  words,  "  Name  of  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  the  metaphysical  mys 
tery  whose  verbal  expression  the  Church  subsequently  incor 
porated  with  the  Faith.  And,  assuming  the  words  to  have 
proceeded  from  Christ  Himself,  and  to  have  been  from  the 
first  apprehended  in  the  maturer  Church's  sense,  there  could 


IN    CERTAIN    SYNOPTICAL   SAYINGS.  303 

have  been  little  reserve  about  the  triformal  and  trinominal 
composition  of  the  Infinite  Substance,  and  the  silence  (not 
to  mention  the  virtual  negations)  of  the  Acts  and  Epistles 
become  more  than  ever  an  insoluble  enigma  to  the  Protest 
ant.  A  theory  of  the  Self-existent  Being,  which  the  Bap 
tismal  formula  was  generally  understood  to  communicate, 
was  assuredly  no  reserved  topic. 

There  are,  however,  other  singularly  delicate  and  subtile, 
if  not  persuasive,  tokens,  that  the  Synoptical  Gospels  furnish 
implications  of  Christ's  Deity.  "  Equally  with  St.  John  they 
represent  Him  as  claiming  to  be  not  merely  the  Teacher,  but 
the  Object  of  His  religion.  He  insists  on  faith  in  His  own 
Person  (St.  Matt.  xvi.  16,  17).  ...  If  Christ  is  the  Logos  in 
St.  John,  in  these  Gospels  He  is  the  Sophia  (Wisdom).  (St. 
Luke  vii.  35  ;  St.  Matt.  xi.  19  ;  Wisdom  was  justified  of  all 
her  children ;  and  apparently  St.  Luke  xi.  49,  where  ike 
Wisdom  of  God  corresponds  to  I  in  St.  Matt,  xxiii.  34). 
Thus  He  ascribes  to  Himself  the  exclusive  knowledge  of  the 
Highest.  No  statement  in  St.  John  really  goes  beyond  the 
terms  in  which,  according  to  two  Synoptists,  He  claims  to 
know  and  to  be  known  of  the  Father.  '  Xo  man  knoweth 
the  Son  but  the  Father,  neither  knoweth  any  man  the  Father 
save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son  will  reveal 
Him'  (St.  Matt.  xi.  27;  St.  Luke  x.  22).  Here  then  is  a  re 
ciprocal  relationship  of  equality ;  the  Son  Alone  has  a  true 
knowledge  of  the  Father ;  the  Son  is  Himself  such  that  the 
Father  Alone  understands  Him"  (p.  251). 

The  witness  to  Christ's  insistence  "  on  faith  in  His  own  Per 
son,"  and  to  His  identification  with  the  Wisdom  of  God,  may 
be  left  uncriticised.  The  remaining  testimony  is  far  from 
unimpeachable.  Does  Mr.  Liddon  suppose  the  Son's  knowl 
edge  of  the  Father  is  of  that  unique  and  incommunicable 
sort  which  presumes  the  possession  of  God-head  ?  and  if 
he  does,  will  he  explain  what  is  meant  by  the  words,  he  to 
whomsoever  the  Son  will  reveal  Him  f  If  Christ  could  impart 
the  knowledge  to  men,  it  was  within  the  grasp  of  created 
capacity,  and  may  be  identical  with  the  knowledge  referred 


304  SUPPOSED   IMPLICATION    OF   DEITY 

to  in  the  saying :  "  Father,  this  is  life  eternal,  that  they  may 
know  Thee  the  Only  True  God,  and  Jesus  Christ  Whom 
Thou  hast  sent "  (John  xvii.  3 ;  comp.  Ye  have  known  the 
Father:  knoweth  God.  —  1  John  ii.  13;  iv.  7).  The  Son  is 
known  by  liis  true  disciples :  "  I  know  my  sheep,  and  am 
known  of  mine"  (John  x.  14)  ;  we  know  Him  (1  John  ii.  3). 
And  St.  Paul  looked  onward  to  a  day,  when  he  should  know 
as  also  he  was  known  (1  Cor.  xiii.  12). 

Christians,  then,  are  capable,  through  Divine  gift  and  illu 
mination,  of  a  knowledge  of  God  and  Christ.  Mr.  Liddon's 
selected  texts  testify  the  Father  can  be  revealed  to  men,  and, 
if  the  Father  can  be  known  in  the  sense  of  the  texts,  even 
a  theologian  will  not  dispute  that  the  Son  can  be  known 
equally.  The  "  reciprocal  relationship  of  equality "  is  not, 
therefore,  equality  in  the  incommunicable  attributes  of  God 
head.  The  unbelieving  Jews  were  not  participators  in  the 
knowledge  of  the  Father,  and  their  persecuting  virulence  is 
ascribed  by  Jesus  to  their  ignorance  of  the  Father  and  Him 
self.  "  These  things  will  they  do  unto  you,  because  they 
know  not  Him  Who  sent  Me ;  because  they  have  not  known 
the  Father,  nor  Me"  (John  xv.  21 ;  xvi.  3).  The  difference 
between  the  outside  world  and  the  enlightened  circle  of 
Christ's  disciples  is  displayed  in  the  words :  "  O  Righteous 
Father,  the  World  knew  Thee  not ;  but  I  knew  Thee,  and 
these  knew  that  thou  didst  send  Me.  And  I  made  known 
unto  them  Thy  Name,  and  will  make  it  known ;  that  the 
love,  wherewith  Thou  lovest  Me  maybe  in  them,  and  I  in 
them"  (xvii.  25,20). 

The  connection,  both  in  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke,  of  the 
statement  from  which  Mr.  Liddon  deduces,  is  the  reverse  of 
suggestive  that  there  is  between  the  Father  and  the  Son  "  a 
reciprocal  relationship  of  equality."  Our  Lord's  words  are 
prefaced  by  an  expression  of  devout  thankfulness  for  the 
Father's  action,  and  by  a  recognition  of  the  Father's  absolute 
sovereignty :  "  I  thank  Thee,  O  Father,  Lord  of  heaven  and 
earth,  because  Thou  hast  hid  these  things  from  the  wise  and 
prudent,  and  hast  revealed  them  unto  babes.  Even  so,  Father ; 


IN    CERTAIN   SYNOPTICAL   SAYINGS.  305 

for  thus  it  seemed  good  in  Thy  sight."  And  does  the  saying, 
All  things  are  delivered  unto  Me  by  my  Father,  accord  with 
the  idea  of  Co-equal  Deity  in  the  Recipient?  Straining  the 
word  all,  in  order  to  enlarge  the  capacity  of  the  Recipient, 
cannot  efface  the  recipiency,  which  is  in  itself  inconsistent 
with  Godhead.  And  the  adjective  all  is  very  freely  used  in 
Scripture  when  its  meaning  is  manifestly  circumscribed,  or, 
at  the  utmost,  restricted  to  what  pertains  to  the  Christian  dis 
pensation.  To  take  a  few  examples  from  the  Fourth  Gospel 
only:  "All  things  which  I  have  heard  from  my  Father,  I 
have  made  known  unto  you"  (xv.  15).  Are  we  to  conclude 
that  every  thing  wyhich  the  Second  of  the  Co-equal  Persons 
"in  the  Three  Who  yet  are  One,"  heard  from  the  First,  is 
here  declared  to  have  been  communicated  to  the  Apostles  ? 
(See  also  iii.  26  ;  iv.  25,  29,  39 ;  xiv.  26). 

But  farther  indications,  full  of  significance  in  Mr.  Lid- 
don's  estimation,  are  producible  from  the  Synoptical  docu 
ments  :  — 

"  In  these  Gospels,  moreover,  Christ  ascribes  to  Himself 
sanctity ;  He  even  places  Himself  above  the  holiest  thing  in 
ancient  Israel.  '  I  say  unto  you,  that  in  this  place  is  a  greater 
thing  than  the  temple'  (Matt.  xii.  6).  He  and  His  people 
are  greater  than  the  greatest  in  the  old  covenant  (Matt.  xi. 
11;  xii.  41,  42:  xxi.  33-42;  Luke  vii.  28).  He  scruples  not 
to  proclaim  His  consciousness  of  having  fulfilled  His  mission. 
He  asserts  that  all  power  is  committed  to  Him  both  on  earth 
and  in  heaven  (Matt.  xi.  27;  xxviii.  18;  Luke  x.  22).  All 
nations  are  to  be  made  disciples  of  His  religion  (Matt, 
xxviii.  19)." 

Is  not  every  sincere  Christian,  to  say  nothing  of  God's 
chosen  and  exceptionally  qualified  Messenger,  Servant,  and 
Son,  more  truly  a  temple  of  God,  greater  and  more  holy, 
than  the  consecrated  fabric  of  wood  and  stone  at  Jerusalem  ? 
May  not  the  least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  be  greater  than 
John  the  Baptist,  and  Jesus  Himself  greater  than  Jonah,  or 
Solomon,  without  entailing  the  inference,  "Jesus  is  God  "? 
The  avowed  consciousness  of  having  fulfilled  His  mission 

20 


306      PERSUASION  BY  FEARFUL  ALTERNATIVES. 

implies,  in  a  very  inexplicable  manner,  Christ's  consciousness 
of  parity  with  the  Father  Who  gave  Him  His  mission  (John 
xvii.  4 ;  iv.  34 ;  v.  36 ;  comp.  the  proximately  Divine  con 
sciousness  of  St.  Paul,  2  Tim.  iv.  7,  8). 

If  it  were  not  a  very  serious  matter  for  men  to  reason 
falsely  from  Scripture,  and  to  build  the  Church's  dogmatic 
faith  on  thoroughly  insecure  foundations,  Mr.  Liddon's  argu 
ment  from  the  Gospels,  and  more  especially  from  the  former 
three,  would  be  simply  amusing.  But,  in  his  fervid  zeal  and 
blind  confidence,  he  stakes  every  thing  on  the  soundness  of 
palpably  invalid  reasonings  and  expository  inferences.  If  the 
sayings  recorded  in  the  Gospels  do  not  implicate  and  reveal 
what  Mr.  Liddon  is  persuaded  they  implicate  and  reveal, 
then  our  Lord  is  not  morally  good  ;  He  is  neither  sincere,  nor 
unselfish,  nor  humble.  This  fearful  alternative,  presented  in 
terms  of  passionately  appealing  rhetoric,  is  no  doubt  sufficient 
to  terrify  the  great  majority  of  minds,  warped  as  they  are  by 
education  into  the  belief  that  the  faith  of  the  Church  respect 
ing  Christ's  Person  can  be  rationally  deduced  from  Scripture. 
A  very  potent  temporary  weapon  of  Protestant  Orthodoxy  is 
this  presentation  of  an  alternative  which  shocks  sacred  pre 
possessions,  and  enlists  the  pious  emotions  against  the  duty 
of  inquiry.  Its  employment  is,  indeed,  calculated  to  awaken 
intellectual  suspicion,  but  theological  controversialists  know 
that,  when  a  widely  prevailing  belief  is  to  be  sustained,  intel 
lect  may  be  disregarded,  provided  the  emotions  can  be  roused 
into  active  play.  When  reason  is  discovered  to  be  inadequate 
to  dogmatic  exigencies,  what  course  is  open  to  the  Protestant 
champions  of  ecclesiastical  truth,  but  to  stem  investigation 
by  presenting  an  alternative  so  alarming,  that  "  devout  and 
earnest  (?)  thought  cannot  falter  for  a  moment  in  the  agony 
of  its  suspense." 

Beneath  all  Mr.  Liddon's  declamation  there  lurks,  as  I 
have  already  had  occasion  to  notice,  the  supremely  false  as 
sumption  that  the  rank  of  Christ  is,  according  to  Scripture, 
either  mere  Manhood,  or  absolute  Godhead.  His  argument 
is  powerless  against  the  really  Scriptural  position,  that  Christ 


MERE    MAN    OR    ABSOLUTE    GOD.  307 

fills  in  the  scale  of  Being  a  place  not  perfectly  defined,  but 
certainly  above  man,*  and  as  certainly  beneath  God.  With 
what  unscrupulous  vehemence  he  urges  the  abandonment  ot 
all  love  and  reverence  for  Jesus,  if  Jesus  is  not  confessed  to 
have  proclaimed  or  implied  His  own  veritable  Deity,  may 
be  gathered  from  the  following  sentence :  "  If  Christ  is  God 
as  well  as  Man,  His  language  falls  into  its  place,  and  all  is 
intelligible;  but  if  you  deny  His  Divinity,  you  must  conclude 
that  some  of  the  most  precious  sayings  in  the  Gospel  are  but 
the  outbreak  of  a  preposterous  self-laudation ;  they  might 
well  seem  to  breathe  the  very  spirit  of  another  Lucifer" 
(p.  196). 

Undiscriminating  attachment  to  every  portion  of  an  inher 
ited  system  which  has  been  elaborated  and  fortified  through 
generations  of  devoted  reception  is  too  natural  to  be  very 
discreditable.  The  deep  and  sound  convictions  which  re 
spond  to  the  intuitions,  and  satisfy  the  cravings  of  man's  reli 
gious  nature,  are  strong  enough  to  carry  a  vast  weight  of 
speculative  lumber,  and  impart  to  feeble  indefensible  theories 
some  measure  of  warmth  and  vitality.  It  is,  therefore,  to  be 
expected  that,  when  times  of  intellectual  sifting  come,  the 
clergy  should  be  impelled  by  other  forces  than  those  of  merely 
selfish  interest,  to  display  a  blindly  obstinate  conservatism  in 
defence  of  the  very  questionable  accretions  with  which  doc 
trines  not  at  variance  with  reason  have  been  encompassed 
and  overlaid.  A  dread  lest  beliefs  having  a  permanent  and 
independent  basis  in  man's  nature  should  be  disturbed  makes 

*  I  mean,  of  course,  if  every  statement  of  Scripture  is  accepted  in  its 
natural  rational  meaning,  with  unquestioning  acquiescence.  The  Christ 
of  an  uncritical  Biblical  Protestantism  is  an  Arian,  superhuman  Christ. 
The  Christ  of  a  critical  Protestantism  is  a  merely  human,  but  extraordi 
narily  endowed  Christ.  For  the  Catholic  Christ  there  is,  without  the 
admission  of  the  Church's  revealing  inspiration  and  authority,  no  logical 
basis  anywhere. 

Apart  from  free  criticism,  Arian  and  Orthodox  expounders  of  texts  are 
both  stronger  in  attack  than  in  defence  ;  but  their  contests  do  not  result  in 
a  dead-lock,  the  decided  advantage,  if  not  the  complete  victory,  being 
necessarily  with  the  Arians.  Before  rational  criticism  neither  Arianism 
nor  Orthodoxy  will  stand. 


308  THE    ALARM-CRIES    OP    CONTROVERSIALISTS. 

the  Protestant  clerical  mind  refuse  to  surrender  time-honored 
traditions,  which  never  could  bear  reason's  scrutiny,  and 
which,  if  not  guaranteed  by  revelation  from  God  through  the 
Church,  represent  only  decaying  moods  and  phases  of  human 
thought  and  sentiment.  But  mental  apathy  and  moral  cow 
ardice,  though  they  affect  most  injuriously  Protestant  adhe 
sion  to  primary  spiritual  truths,  are  very  different  from  the 
alarm-cries  of  professional  controversy,  and  the  outbursts  of 
emasculated  bigotry,  deliberately  invoking  terror,  and  for 
mally  staking  precious  verities  on  the  continued  acceptance  of 
precarious  opinions.  The  servants  of  the  God  of  Truth,  and 
the  ministers  of  the  Anointed  King  in  Truth's  Kingdom,  do 
not  let  their  light  shine,  and  certainly  do  not  advance  their 
Master's  glory,  when  in  angry  effeminate  desperation  they 
brandish  in  men's  faces  the  alternative,  "  You  must  take  the 
whole  of  our  system,  or  let  all  religion  go."  Consent  won  by 
fear  against  intelligence  is  too  speedily  and  terribly  avenged 
to  be  worth  winning.  Yet  we  saw  Dignitaries  of  the  Angli 
can  Church  promptly  sink  to  this  degraded  style  of  argu 
ment,  when  an  adventurous  Prelate  published  his  persuasion 
that  the  Pentateuch  is  by  no  means  unmixed  truth,  and 
Moses  not  its  sole  author ;  and  now  we  see  Mr.  Liddon 
demean  himself  to  imperil  all  loving  veneration  for  Christ, 
all  faith  in  Christ's  precepts,  example,  inspiration,  and  mis 
sion  from  the  Father,  by  frantically  waving  the  ugly  scare 
crow,  —  « if  Jesus  be  not  infinitely  Divine,  He  must  be  almost 
Satanic." 

I  have  now  shown  by  copious  reference  to  Scripture,  and 
more  particularly  to  the  Fourth  Gospel,  that  Christ's  claims 
did  not  rise  to  the  height  Mr.  Liddon  imagines.  They  were 
distinctly  and  studiously  (unless  we  isolate  and  inflate  at 
pleasure  a  few  little  patches  of  vague  and  metaphorical  dic 
tion)  below  the  appropriation  of  Deity,  or  the  assertion  of 
equality  with  the  Father.  Mr.  Liddon's  dilemma  cannot  be 
formally  retorted,  because  the  suppositions  that  Christ  is 
God,  and  that  His  words  have  been  handed  down  with 
unerring  correctness,  lift  His  sayings  above  all  criticism  and 


PLAIN   WORDS    SPOKEN    BY    CHRIST.  309 

* 

the  application  of  any  moral  standard  ;  but,  if  the  rules  of 
human  veracity  and  sincerity  could  be  applied,  Christ  would 
be  convicted  of  untruthfulness,  and  a  cruelly  misleading 
phraseology,  when,  knowing  Himself  to  be  God,  and  knowing 
also  that  faith  in  his  Godhead  was  to  be  a  vital  necessity, 
He,  without  elucidating  and  guarding  explanations,  expressed 
Himself  as  follows  :  — 

u  Why  callest  thou  Me  good  ?  None  is  good  except  One, 
that  is,  God"  (Mark  x.  18  ;  Luke  xviii.  19). 

"  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is  upon  Me,  because  He  hath 
anointed  Me,"  &c.  (Luke  iv.  18,  19 ;  comp.  Matt.  xii.  18). 

"  Of  that  day  or  that  hour  knoweth  no  one,  neither  the 
angels  in  heaven,  nor  the  Son,  but  the  Father "  (Mark  xiii. 
32 ;  comp.  Matt.  xxiv.  36,  and  Acts  i.  7). 

"  To  sit  on  my  right  hand,  and  on  my  left,  is  not  mine  to 
give,  except  to  those  for  whom  it  has  been  prepared  by  my 
Father"  (Matt.  xx.  23;  Mark  x.  40). 

"Thinkest  thou  that  I  cannot  now  pray  to  my  Father, 
and  He  will  furnish  Me  with  more  than  twelve  legions  of 
Angels?"  (Matt.  xxvi.  53).. 

"  My  Father,  if  it  be  possible,  let  this  cup  pass  from  Me ; 
nevertheless  not  as  I  will,  but  as  Thou  wilt "  (Matt.  xxvi.  39, 
42;  Mark  xiv.  34-36;  Luke  xxii.  42). 

"My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  Thou  forsaken  Me"  (Matt, 
xxvii.  46;  Mark  xv.  34). 

"Father,  into  Thy  hands  I  commend  my  spirit"  (Luke 
xxiii.  46). 

The  dogma  inculcated  by  Mr.  Liddon  pronounces  the  soul 
and  spirit  of  Jesus  to  have  been*  inextricably  taken  into  a 
Personal  Form  of  the  Divine  Nature,  Very  God,  possessing 
in  their  entirety  the  attributes  of  Deity.  But,  upon  this 
hypothesis,  the  language  just  cited  is  not  only  mysterious 
and  inexplicable,  it  is  also,  in  the  highest  degree,  artificial, 
histrionic,  and  misguiding.  What  must  it  have  been  under 
stood  to  express  and  imply,  by  those  who  heard  it,  more  par 
ticularly  if,  in  their  minds,  there  already  existed,  or  were  in 
the  progress  of  dogmatic  revelation  soon  to  be  sown,  the 
seeds  of  faith  in  Christ's  veritable  Godhead  ? 


310  CHRIST   INSINCERE   IN    HIS   WORDS, 

» 

"  Simon,  Simon,  behold  Satan  hath  sought  to  have  ye,  that 
he  might  sift  ye  as  wheat ;  but  I  have  prayed  for  thee,  that 
thy  faith  fail  not"  (Luke  xxii.  31,  32). 

"  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  the  Son  can  do  nothing  of 
Himself,  except  what  He  seeth  the  Father  doing.  I  can 
of  mine  own  self  do  nothing,"  &c.  (John  v.  19,  30).  "I  do 
nothing  of  Myself;  but  as  my  Father  hath  taught  Me,  I 
speak  these  things"  (viii.  28).  But  I  have  already  referred 
sufficiently  to  some  of  the  multitude  of  utterances  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  which,  if  accepted  as  veracious  and  intelligible 
statements,  afford  the  strongest  inferential  evidence  against 
the  supposition  of  Christ's  Deity.  I  wTill  now  confine  myself 
to  sayings  of  a  very  direct  and  explicit  nature ;  they  could 
not,  indeed,  be  more  direct  and  explicit,  unless  they  had  been 
pointed,  formal  negations  of  Christ's  true  Godhead. 

"  The  Only  God"  "  That  they  may  know  Thee  (Father), 
the  Only  True  God,  and  Jesus  Christ  whom  Thou  hast  sent " 
(v.  44;  xvii.  3). 

"My  Father  is  greater  than  I"  (xiv.  28). 

"  Go  to  my  brethren  and  say  unto  them :  I  ascend  unto 
my  Father  and  your  Father,  and  my  God  and  your  God " 
(xx.  17). 

Tried  by  the  rules  of  human  morality  these  sayings  are 
conspicuously  untruthful,  insincere,  and  deceptive,  if  Jesus 
knew  Himself  to  be  the  Father's  Equal,  Essentially  and  truly 
God ;  and  if,  further,  He  designed  His  own  utterances  should 
be  ingredients  in  the  revelation  of  His  Xature.  But  if  He 
knew  Himself  not  to  be  God,  these  sayings  are,  in  their  nat 
ural  sense,  and  with  their  inevitable  suggestions,  simple, 
intelligible,  and  honest.  The  former  of  the  pair  of  alterna 
tives  which  really  issue  from  the  evidence  is  exactly  the 
reverse  of  that  ("  the  conscious  and  culpable  insincerity  of 
Jesus  if  he  is  not  God  ")  on  which  Mr.  Liddou  insists.  He 
assures  his  readers  with  reference  to  his  own  fancied  reduc- 
tiones  ad  horribile :  "  Certainly  we  cannot  create  such  alter 
natives  by  any  process  of  dialectical  manufacture,  if  they  do 
not  already  exist."  He  has,  with  laborious  ingenuity,  striven 


IF    HE   KNEW   HIMSELF   TO    BE    GOD.  311 

to  effect  what  lie  pronounces  to  be  impossible.  But  as  he 
himself  reminds  us,  "  If  such  alternatives  are  not  matters  of 
fact,  they  can  easily  be  convicted  of  inaccuracy"  (p.  203). 

Looking  solely  to  "  the  language  which  Christ  actually 
used  about  Himself,"  and  taking  it  as  their  sufficient  guide, 
Protestants  have,  in  reason  and  candor,  no  choice  left  but 
to  deny  that  He  is  God.  By  the  light  of  reasonably  inter 
preted  Scripture,  no  apostrophe  can  be  further  from  the 
truth  than  that  with  which  Mr.  Liddon  concludes  his  Fourth 
Lecture :  — 

"  Eternal  Jesus !  it  is  Thyself  Who  hast  thus  bidden  us 
either  despise  Thee  or  worship  Thee.  Thou  wouldst  have 
us  despise  Thee  as  our  fellow-man,  if  wre  will  not  worship 
Thee  as  our  God." 

By  the  light  of  ecclesiastical  revelation  the  case  is,  I  admit, 
changed:  words  acquire  new  meanings,  Scripture  is  trans 
formed,  and  rational  significance  is  banished. 


CHAPTER   XI. 

Examination  of  the  Scripture  testimony  adduced  in  support  of  the  prop 
osition,  "from  the  earliest  age  of  Christianity,  Jesus  Christ  has 
been  adored  as  God." — The  terms  which  precisely  and  definitely 
describe  the  worship  and  service  due  to  the  Supreme  Being  are 
never  connected  with  the  Name  of  Christ.  —  Detailed  investigation 
of  the  feeble  and  forced  pretexts  on  which  Mr.  Liddon  relies.  — 
Meaning  of  the  expressions,  to  call  upon  the  Lord,  and  upon  the  Name  of 
the  Lord.  —  Dying  petitions  of  St.  Stephen.  —  Words  of  frequent  use, 
and  specific,  restricted  application,  denoting  prayers  and  vows  to  the 
Almighty,  are  never  used  of  petitions  addressed  to  Christ. —  The 
prayer  at  the  election  of  the  Apostle  Matthias  was  offered  to  our 
God  and  Father,  not  to  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  — Argument  from  the 
prayer  of  the  disciple  Ananias,  and  from  the  first  prayers  of  St.  Paul, 
examined.  —  Supposed  recognition,  in  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  of  prayer 
to  Jesus  Christ,  including  the  Apostle's  entreaty  to  be  freed  from 
"  the  thorn  in  the  flesh."  —  Strained  and  erroneous  constructions  of 
passages  in  St.  John's  Eirst  Epistle,  and  in  the  Apocalypse.  —  Brief 
summary  of  the  evidence  that  Christ  was  not  worshipped  as  God.  — 
A  glance  at  some  arguments  from  the  earlier  Fathers.  — Frequency  of 
devotional  addresses  to  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  the  Anglican  Book 
of  Common  Prayer.  —  llemarks  on  the  action  of  the  Clergy,  and  on 
the  use  of  Family  Prayers,  and  Hymns,  wherein  Jesus  Christ  is 
studiously  equalized  with  the  Father,  in  the  language  of  supplica 
tion  and  praise. 

MR.  LIDDOX'S  failure  in  his  attempt  to  prove  that,  "  from 
the  earliest  age  of  Christianity,  Jesus  Christ  has  been  adored 
as  God,"  is  no  fault  of  his.  The  task  to  which  he  applied 
himself  was  beyond  the  powers  of  any  special  pleadership, 
however  talented.  The  worship  of  Christ  as  God  is  nowhere 
enjoined  in  Scripture,  while  the  worship  of  the  God  and 
Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  enjoined,  and  shown  by 
clear  and  plentiful  evidence  to  have  been  the  habitual  prac 
tice  of  the  Apostles  and  first  disciples.  About  the  general 
and  prescribed  Scripture  rule  with  regard  to  prayer  and 


THE   WORSHIP    OF    CHRIST   NOT    ENJOINED.  313 

thanksgiving,  there  can  be  no  dispute.  The  worship  of  Jesus 
must,  as  its  Protestant  advocates  well  know,  be  based  upon 
presumed  implications,  and  indirect  teachings,  and  upon 
instances  which  carry  on  the  face  of  them  discriminative  and 
exceptional  circumstances.  The  precepts  of  Jesus  Himself 
perspicuously  and  unequivocally  set  the  Father  before  us  as 
the  only  Object  of  strictly  religious  homage.  The  teaching 
and  example  of  the  Apostles,  so  far  as  Scripture  recounts 
them,  repeat,  and  are  conformed  to,  the  Great  Master's  pre 
cepts.  From  a  mass  of  testimony,  I  select  a  few  texts  : 
Matt.  vi.  6-15  ;  vii.  11 ;  Luke  xi.  1,  2,  13 ;  Mark  xi.  25  ;  John 
iv.  21-24 ;  xv.  16  ;  xvi.  23,  24, 26 ;  Acts  iv.  24-30  ;  Rom.  i.  8-10; 
xv.  5,  6,  30  ;  1  Cor.  i.  4  ;  Eph.  i.  16,  17  ;  iii.  14  ;  v.  20  ;  Phil. 
i.  3-6;  iv.  6;  Col.  i.  3 ;  1  Thess.  i.  2;  2  Thess.  i.  3,  11,  12. 

When  we  lay  aside  foregone  conclusions,  and  look  steadily 
at  the  subject,  we  can  scarcely  escape  perceiving  how  the 
existence  of  exhortations  and  directions  to  render  to  the 
Almighty  Father  the  tribute  of  prayer  and  praise,  and 
the  lack  of  directions  and  exhortations  to  render  the  like 
tribute  to  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  constitute  a  very  serious 
obstacle  to  the  reception  of  Mr.  Liddon's  dictum :  "  The 
adoration  of  Jesus  is  as  ancient  as  Christianity.  Jesus  has 
been  ever  adored  on  the  score  of  His  Divine  Personality,  of 
Which  this  tribute  of  adoration  is  not  merely  a  legitimate 
but  a  necessary  acknowledgment"  (p.  364).  The  worship 
of  Christ  on  the  ground  of  His  Essential  Deity,  and  with 
"  that  adoration  which  is  due  to  the  Most  High  God,  and  to 
Him  Alone,"  would  be,  both  to  Jewish  and  Gentile  converts, 
a  peculiar  and  difficult  feature  in  their  newly  adopted  faith. 
Very  little  encouragement  or  counsel  would  be  needed  to 
impress  the  duty  of  praying  to  and  praising  the  one-  God  and 
leather  of  all,  but  most  explicit  and  repeated  encouragement 
and  counsel  would  seem  to  have  been  necessary,  in  order  to 
develop  and  direct  "  that  worship  of  Christ's  Person,  that 
tide  of  adoration,"  which  is  imagined  to  have  "  burst  upwards 
from  the  heart  of  His  Church  "  immediately  after  His  Ascen 
sion.  Without  expressed  guidance  and  pointed  admonition, 


314  IS   THE   ADORATION    OF    CHRIST 

it  is  simp.y  inconceivable  that  the  adoration  of  Christ,  "  on 
the  score  of  His  .Divine  Personality,"  could  have  been,  as 
Mr.  Liddon  opines,  "  the  universal  practice  of  Christians ;  " 
"  in  the  judgment  of  Christians  and  imperious  Christian 
duty  "  "  rooted  in  the  doctrine  and  practice  of  the  Apostles, 
and  banded  down  to  succeeding  ages  as  an  integral  and  re 
cognized  element  of  the  spiritual  life  of  the  Church." 

I  am  fully  conscious  dearth  of  Scriptural  mandate  is  not, 
from  the  Catholic  point  of  view,  an  effective  argument 
against  paying  to  Christ  the  honors  of  supreme  worship. 
The  section  of  Apostolic  teaching  which  related  to  the  adora 
tion  of  Christ  may,  owing  to  its  intimate  connection  with 
the  revelation  of  His  Deity,  have  been  withheld  from  the 
written  documents,  and  committed  to  the  less  exposed  chan 
nel  of  the  Church's  oral  tradition.  The  witness  to  the 
Divine  adoration  of  Jesus  would  indeed  appear  naturally  to 
follow  the  witness  to  His  absolute  Divinity ;  and  ho\v  jeal 
ously  the  presiding  inspiration  of  the  Canonical  penmen 
restrained  and  veiled  that  witness,  we  have  already  seen. 
But,  upon  the  primary  Protestant  hypothesis,  that  the  Bible 
alone  yields  sufficient  rules  of  faith  and  practice,  the  circum 
stance  of  our  being  taught  and  counselled  to  offer  supplica 
tions  and  thanksgivings  to  God  our  Heavenly  Father,  and 
not  taught  and  counselled  to  offer  them  to  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  is  a  very  formidable  barrier  against  the  proposition 
which  Mr.  Liddon  so  ardently  affirms.  The  evidence  is, 
undeniably,  in  a  vastly  inverse  proportion  to  the  rational 
demand.  The  New  Testament  rule  of  worship  is  copious 
and  lucid  where  new  light  was  little  called  for ;  it  is  most 
meagre  and  indistinct  where  full  and  precise  statements  was 
indispensable. 

In  common  with  all  expositors  who  undertake  to  find  in 
Scripture  intimations  of  Christ's  having  been  the  Object  of 
supreme  religious  worship,  Mr.  Liddon  is  compelled  to  fabri 
cate  negative  testimony,  by  assuming  the  point  lie  was  bound 
to  prove.  He  remarks,  "  never  was  the  adoration  of  Jesus 
protested  against  in  the  Church  as  a  novelty,  derogatory  to 


COEVAL  WITH  THE  CHURCH  ?  315 

the  honor  and  claims  of  God,"  forgetting,  apparently,  that 
the  absence  of  prohibition  and  protest  in  the  New  Testament 
has  for  him  no  auxiliary  bearing,  unless  the  New  Testament 
contains  proof  of  his  positions  :  "  The  early  Christian  Church 
approached  Christ's  Glorious  Person  with  that  very  tribute 
of  prayer,  of  self-prostration,  of  self-surrender,  by  which  all 
serious  Theists,  whether  Christian  or  non-Christian,  are  ac 
customed  to  express  their  felt  relationship  as  creatures  to  the 
Almighty  Creator.  .  .  .  The  Church  simply  adored  God  ;  and 
she  adored  Jesus  Christ,  as  believing  Him  to  be  God"  (p.  3GO). 
"  The  historical  fact  before  us  is,  that  from  the  earliest  age  of 
Christianity  Jesus  Christ  has  been  adored  as  God." 

The  negative  evidence,  so  far  as  it  has  weight,  is  measured 
more  equitably,  when  we  see  in  it  a  token  that  Divine  adora 
tion  was  not  paid  to  Jesus.  Assuming  the  Canonical  records 
to  comprise  a  moderately  complete  exhibition  of  prominent 
facts,  it  is  significant  that  no  charges  of  idolatry  and  mis 
directed  worship  were  laid  against  the  first  Christians  by 
their  Jewish  adversaries,  more  particularly  since  the  Fourth 
Gospel  (as  understood  by  Mr.  Liddon)  attests  the  Jews  to 
have  suspected  and  accused  Christ  of  claiming  to  be  the 
Almighty  One.  The  question  whether  "  the  unlettered  multi 
tudes  of  the  Church  so  acted  and  spoke  as  to  imply  a  belief 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  actually  God,"  was  a  question  likely  to  be 
very  keenly  scrutinized  by  Priests,  and  Scribes,  and  Phari 
sees  ;  and,  unless  proof  to  the  contrary  is  forthcoming,  the 
natural  inference  from  Jewish  silence  is,  —  Christians  did  not, 
by  adoring  Jesus  Christ  as  God,  afford  a  pretext  for  the 
charge  of  idolatry.  The  "  heresy  "  which  St.  Paul  confessed 
was  not  that  in  the  matter  of  worship  he  had  in  any  degree 
put  Jesus  of  Nazareth  in  the  place  of  the  God  of  his  Fathers 
(Acts  xxiv.  14;  comp.  iii.  13). 

And  what  proof  is  Mr.  Liddon  able  to  construct,  that  the 
adoration  of  Christ  is  coeval  with  the  Church ?  He  begins 
with  a  totally  unapt  disquisition  on  the  difference  between 
admiration  and  adoration.  No  one  who  is  willing  to  accept 
and  abide  by  the  statements  of  the  New  Testament  can  sup- 


316  TEXTS   ADDUCED    TO    VINDICATE 

pose  "the  early  Christian  Church  contented  herself  with 
'  admiring '  Jesus  Christ."  According  to  the  representations 
in  the  New  Testament,  He  was  venerated  with  a  veneration 
distinct  from  that  paid  to  angels  or  men,  and  distinct  also 
from  that  paid  to  God.  He  was  reverenced  and  honored  as 
one  who  held  a  heavenly  commission,  was  furnished  with 
heavenly  gifts,  and  filled  an  altogether  peculiar  place  and 
office  between  the  Most  High  God  our  Father,  and  the  great 
human  family  whom  the  Father's  love  was  seeking  to  elevate 
and  save.  To  descant  on  the  difference  between  admiration 
and  adoration  serves  no  purpose,  except  that  of  diverting  the 
reader's  attention  to  a  false  issue.  What  Mr.  Liddon's  case 
requires  is  Scriptural  proof  of  the  position  Jesus  was  wor 
shipped  because  He  was  apprehended  to  be  verily  God.  If 
the  proof  is  riot  producible  in  the  shape  of  direct  assertions 
of  His  Godhead,  and  injunctions  to  worship  Him  as  God,  it 
may  be  produced  in  the  shape  of  evidence,  that  the  homage 
rendered  Him  was  of  such  a  nature  as  to  be  incomprehensi 
ble  on  any  other  ground  than  His  veritable  Deity.  And,  for 
the  production  of  proof  in  the  latter  shape,  a  primary  neces 
sity  is  refutation  of  the  opinion  that  His  claims  and  qualifica 
tions  as  an  exalted  Spiritual  Being,  who  is  in  a  special  sense 
the  Messenger,  Servant,  and  Son  of  the  Highest,  are  ade 
quate  to  explain  the  veneration  and  service  of  which  He  was 
the  Object.  But  Mr.  Liddon  entirely  fails  to  furnish  this 
necessary  refutation.  As  usual,  he  shirks  the  real  question, 
leaving  out  of  the  calculation  the  singular  Messianic  func 
tions  and  endowments,  and  stating  his  argument  as  though 
it  were  enough  to  show  that  the  profound  reverence  accorded 
to  Jesus  was  more  than  only  a  good  man,  or  an  Angel,  would 
have  received. 

Some  of  the  texts  adduced  to  vindicate  the  worship  of 
Christ  have  been  already  examined  in  conjunction  with  other 
portions  of  Mr.  Liddon's  reasonings.  I  shall  try  to  avoid 
needless  repetition,  but  repetition  to  some  extent  is  unavoid 
able. 

As  a  sample  of  adoration,  Rev.  i.  17  is  cited.     "  '  When  I 


THE   WORSHIP   OF   CHRIST.  317 

saw  Him,'  says  St.  John,  speaking  of  Jesus  in  His  glory, 
'  I  fell  at  His  feet  as  dead.'  That  was  something  more  than 
admiration,  even  the  most  enthusiastic;  it  was  an  act  in 
which  self  had  no  part;  it  was  an. act  of  adoration."  It  looks 
far  more  like  the  effect  of  sudden  and  overpowering  alarm 
and  awe,  and  as  such  seems  to  have  been  dealt  with  by  the 
glorified  Son  of  Man  in  the  vision  :  "  He  laid  His  right  hand 
upon  me,  saying,  Fear  not :  I  am  the  first  and  the  last,  and 
the  living  (one),  and  I  was  dead,  and  behold  I  am  living  for 
evermore."  That  the  writer  of  the  Apocalypse  did  not  con 
sider  Jesus  Christ  to  be  the  Lord  God  Almighty  is  abun 
dantly  clear  from  the  language  of  verses  1,  5,  and  6,  of  the 
first  chapter. 

The  reverential  respect  paid  to  Christ  while  upon  earth, 
Mr.  Liddon  conceives  to  have  been,  at  least  in  some  instances, 
Divine  worship. 

"  During  the  days  of  His  early  life,  our  Lord  was  sur 
rounded  by  acts  of  homage,  ranging,  as  it  might  seem,  so  for 
as  the  intentions  of  those  who  offered  them  were  concerned, 
from  the  wonted  forms  of  Eastern  courtesy  up  to  the  most 
direct  and  conscious  acts  of  Divine  worship.  ...  It  may  be 
that,  in  some  of  these  instances,  the  '  worship '  paid  to  Jesus 
did  not  express  more  than  a  profound  reverence.  Sometimes 
He  was  worshipped  as  a  Superhuman  Person,  wielding  super 
human  powers  ;  sometimes  He  was  worshipped  by  those  who 
instinctively  felt  His  moral  majesty,  which  forced  them,  they 
knew  not  how,  upon  their  knees.  But  if  He  had  been  only 
a  '  good  man,'  He  must  have  checked  such  worship.  He  had 
Himself  re-affirmed  the  foundation  law  of  the  religion  of 
Israel :  '  Thou  shalt  worship  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  Him 
only  shalt  thou  serve'  (Matt.  iv.  10).  Yet  He  never  hints 
that  danger  lurked  in  this  prostration  of  hearts  and  wills 
before  Himself;  He  welcomes,  by  a  tacit  approval,  this  pro 
found  homage  of  which  He  is  the  Object"  (pp.  364-366). 

Now  there  are  in  the  New  Testament  certain  words  of 
not  infrequent  occurrence  (G^Secdai;  l.axQsvetv ;  kaiQEia),  which 
express  with  precision  and  definiteness  the  worship  and  ser- 


318  WAS    CHRIST   WORSHIPPED 

vice  due  to  the  Supreme  Being.  These  words  are  never 
found  in  connection  with  the  Name  of  Christ.  Will  Mr. 
Liddon  explain  that  fact  ?  If  these  words  had  been  used  to 
describe  the  homage  and  service  done  to  Christ,  there  would 
have  been,  so  far,  reason  for  surmising  some  perception  of 
His  Deity  to  have  dwelt  in  the  minds  of  His  first  disciples, 
though,  even  then,  the  absence,  during  His  earthly  lifetime, 
of  all  other  traces  of  the  state  of  mind  and  feeling  which  must 
have  been  engendered  by  belief  in  His  Deity,  would  have 
been  a  serious  difficulty.  But  the  terms  used  to  describe 
the  homage  and  service  He  received  are  such  only  as  are 
often  employed  to  express  relations  and  obligations  of  respect 
and  service  between  man  and  man.  The  same  terms  are, 
doubtless,  employed  also,  as  many  other  common  terms  are, 
to  express  the  relations  in  which  we  stand  to  God,  and  the 
duties  we  owe  to  Him ;  but,  when  so  employed,  they  acquire 
from  the  known  attributes  of  the  Almighty,  a  peculiar  and 
intensified  meaning.  The  claims  of  the  Most  High  upon  the 
affections,  the  homage,  the  obedience,  of  His  rationally  intel 
ligent  creatures,  are  at  once  so  singular  and  supreme,  that 
ordinary  language  is  transfigured  by  associatioYi  with  His 
Holy  Name  and  the  duties  owing  to  Him.  The  supposition 
that  the  customary  Eastern  usages  of  kneeling  and  prostra 
tion,  with  which  our  Lord  was  frequently  approached  during 
His  mortal  lifetime,  were  ever  "  direct  and  conscious  Divine 
worship,"  is  purely  arbitrary  and  unfounded.  There  can  be 
no  doubt  genuflexion  and  prostrate  obeisance  were  acts  of 
reverential  salutation  and  suppliant  respect,  not  unusual  on 
the  part  of  inferiors  to  men  of  superior  rank ;  and  the  verb 
TtQOGxvvetv,  by  which  the  homage  or  "worship"  paid  to  Christ 
is  denoted,  is  assuredly  not  limited  to  the  expression  of  Di 
vine  worship  (see  Matt,  xviii.  26;  Mark.  xv.  19;  Acts  x.  25; 
and  Septuagint,  Gen.  xxiii.  7,  12;  xlii.  6;  Exod.  xviii.  7;  1 
Sam.  xxiv.  8  ;  1  Kings  i.  23,  comp.  xviii.  7  ;  Dan.  ii.  46).  To 
worship,  in  the  modern  religious  and  restricted  use,  is  not  its 
equivalent,  except  in  its  application  to  the  Almighty,  when, 
of  course,  the  application  affixes  the  highest  and  utmost 
meaning  the  verb  will  bear. 


DURING    HIS    EARTHLY   LIFE  ?  319 

Mr.  Liddon  admits  that,  in  the  intentions  of  those  who 
offered  them,  the  acts  of  homage,  and  the  "language  of  devo 
tion  "  by  which  our  Lord  was  surrounded,  had  a  very  wide 
range,  and  unequal  significance,  and  he  can  supply  no  frag 
ment  of  indication,  that  in  a  single  instance  the  manifes 
tations  of  respect  and  deference  from  which  he  argues  were 
incited  by  the  knowledge,  or  the  suspicion,  that  Jesus  was  the 
Supreme  Being.  The  instances  of  "the  worship  of  Jesus 
during  His  earthly  life,"  which  he  has  flung  together,  simply 
fill  his  space,  without  aiding  his  argument.  He  "freely  con 
cedes  "  many  of  the  prostrations  by  which  the  worship  was 
expressed  did  not  involve  the  payment  of  Divine  honors  • 
but,  in  reply  to  Channing's  insistence  on  "  the  indifference 
of  the  Jews  to  the  frequent  prostrations  of  men  before 
Christ,"  urges :  "  That  the  Jews  suspected  the  intention  to 
honor  Christ's  Divinity  in  none  of  them  would  not  prove 
that  none  of  them  were  designed  to  honor  It.  The  Jews 
were  not  present  at  the  confession  of  St.  Thomas  after  the 
Resurrection  ;  but  there  is  no  reasonable  room  for  questioning 
either  the  devotional  purpose  or  the  theological  force  of  the 
Apostle's  exclamation,  My  Lord  and  My  God"  Men's  ideas 
of  "reasonable  room"  in  theology  vary  with  their  prejudices 
and  controversial  aims ;  but  there  would  seem  to  be  the  least 
possible  room  for  assuming  the  doubting  Thomas,  who  was 
invited  to  accept  proofs  of  Christ's  Resurrection,  to  have 
passed  over  in  a  moment  to  the  conviction  that  the  Being 
who  had  been  crucified,  and  raised  from  the  dead,  was  the 
Lord  God  Almighty.  The  devotional  purpose  is  on  a  par 
with  the  theological  force  of  the  exclamation  ascribed  to  the 
Apostle. 

Mr.  Liddon  says :  "  Apparently  Mary  of  Magdala,  in  her 
deep  devotion,  had  motioned  to  embrace  His  feet  in  the 
garden,  when  Jesus  bade  her  Touch  Me  not"  The  deep 
devotion  is  more  apparent  in  the  commentary  than  in  the 
Evangelist's  recital.  "Jesus  saith  unto  her,  Mary.  She 
turned  herself,  and  saith  unto  Him,  Rabboni,  which  is  to  say, 
Teacher.  Jesus  saith  unto  her,  Touch  me  not ;  for  I  am  not 


320  DISTINCTION    BETWEEN    HOMAGE 

yet  ascended  to  my  Father ;  but  go  to  my  brethren  and  say 
unto  them,  I  ascend  unto  my  Father,  and  your  Father,  and 
my  God  and  your  God  (St.  John  xx.  16,  17). 

Mr.  Liddon  cites  the  conduct  of  the  eleven  disciples  who 
"met  our  Lord  by  appointment  on  a  mountain  in  Galilee,  and 
'when  they  saw  Him,'  as  it  would  seem,  in  their  joy  and  fear, 
'they  worshipped  Him.'  If  'some  doubted,'  the  worship 
offered  by  the  rest  may  be  presumed  to  have  been  a  very  delib 
erate  act  (St.  Matthew  xxviii.  17)."  What  does  Mr.  Liddon 
consider  to  have  been  the  subject  of  their  doubt ;  the  Resur 
rection  or  the  Deity  of  Jesus  ?  If  the  former,  there  is  no 
pretext  for  converting  the  demonstrations  of  reverence  and 
obeisance  made  by  any  of  the  eleven  into  acts  of  deliberate 
religious  adoration. 

"  When  the  ascending  Jesus  was  being  borne  upwards  into 
Heaven,  the  disciples,  as  if  thanking  Him  for  His  great  glory, 
worshipped  Him ;  and  then '  returned  to  Jerusalem  with  great 
joy  '  (St.  Luke  xxiv.  51,  52)."  Does  not  fair  exposition  demand 
that  verses  fifty-two  and  fifty-three,  which  together  form  one 
sentence,  should  not  be  put  asunder:  "And  were  continually 
in  the  temple  praising  and  blessing  God."  The  narrative, 
when  reasonably  and  honestly  read,  may  well  suggest,  they 
thanked  God  for  Christ's  great  glory,  but  cannot  suggest, 
they  thanked  Christ  Himself.  Their  worship  was  not  a  ren 
dering  of  honors  belonging  to  God,  but  a  showing  forth  of 
the  veneration  and  awe  which  the  character  of  Jesus,  and 
the  marvellous  events  of  His  Resurrection  and  Ascension, 
naturally  inspired.  The  thanksgivings  in  the  temple  were 
worship  in  the  strictest,  highest  sense. 

When  we  are  told  the  man  born  blind  accompanied  his 
confession  of  faith  in  the  Son  of  God  "  by  an  undoubted  act 
of  adoration  "  (St.  John  ix.  35-38),  wre  are  led  to  ask  whether 
the  title  Son  of  God  was  a  recognized  synonym  for  God,  or 
for  the  post-canonical  designation  God  the  Son.  If  it  was 
not,  the  blind  man's  reverent  homage  has  no  proper  place  in 
Mr.  Liddon's  argument.  If  the  man  did  not  worship  Jesus 
under  the  persuasion  that  Jesus  was  indeed  God,  his  "  wor 
ship  "  was  not  adoration  of  God. 


AND    DIVINE    WORSHIP.  321 

It  seems  scarcely  credible,  but  Mr.  Liddon  actually  inquires, 
"Did  not  the  dying  thief  offer  at  least  a  true  inward  wor 
ship  to  Jesus  Crucified,  along  with  the  words,  '  Lord,  remem 
ber  me  when  Thou  comest  into  Thy  kingdom '  ?  (St.  Luke 
xxiii.  42)." 

The  difference  is  not  very  material  in  relation  to  the  point 
under  discussion,  but  the  true  reading  most  probably  is : 
"Jesus,  remember  me  when  thou  comest  in  thy  kingdom." 
In  the  verse  next  preceding,  the  repentant  robber  is  reported 
to  have  said  respecting  Jesus,  "  This  (man)  hath  done  noth 
ing  amiss."  But  man  is  not  supplied  in  the  original,  and 
perhaps  the  ecclesiastically  irradiated  instinct  which  detects 
the  latent  harmonies  of  the  written  and  unwritten  Word 
may  have  taught  Mr.  Liddon,  God  is  the  noun  in  the  agree 
ment.  At  any  rate  if  the  penitent  malefactor  had  not 
attained  to  the  conception  that  the  human  vesture  of  a  Self- 
existent  and  Deathless  Person  was  expiring  by  His  side,  his 
"  true  inward  worship  "  was  not  worship  offered  to  Jesus  as 
God. 

In  truth  no  assertion  can  less  endure  rational  scrutiny  than 
the  assertion  that  any  of  the  acts  of  homage  which  Christ 
received  during  His  earthly  lifetime  were  "most  direct  and 
conscious  acts  of  Divine  worship."  They  could  not  possibly 
have  been  so,  unless  the  men  and  women  from  whom  they 
proceeded  believed  Christ  to  be  in  very  deed  God.  It  is,  I 
know,  a  rash  thing  to  set  bounds  to  the  eccentricities  of 
pious  Protestant  exposition,  but  I  doubt  whether  an  inter- 
pr^ter  of  established  sanity  could  be  found  with  the  capacity 
for  discovering  in  the  pages  of  the  Gospel  narratives  tokens 
our  Lord  wras  apprehended  to  be  God  by  any  of  His  earthly 
friends  and  followers. 

Inferences  from  the  circumstance  of  Christ's  not  having 
checked  the  worship  with  which  He  was  often  approached 
can  have  no  validity,  apart  from  the  assumptions  that  such 
worship  was  either  intentionally  offered  to  Him  as  God,  or 
was,  in  its  own  nature,  and  by  the  light  of  customary  prac 
tice,  beyond  what  any  Being  less  than  God  could  lawfully 

21 


322  THE   FOUNDATION   LAW 

receive.  But  both  these  assumptions  are  unwarranted. 
When  Mr.  Liddon  writes  about  "  the  prostration  of  hearts 
and  wills  before  Christ,"  he  uses  language  which  may  cor 
rectly  convey  his  own  impressions,  but  which  certainly  ex 
ceeds  the  Evangelical  statements. 

In  "  the  foundation  law  of  the  religion  of  Israel  —  Thou 
shalt  worship  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  Him  only  shalt  thou 
serve"  quoted  in  Matt.  iv.  8-10,  and  in  the  fuller  account,  Luke 
iv.  5-8,  the  exclusive  restriction  is  with  the  service,  which  is 
expressed  by  a  word  consecrated  to  God,  and  never  applied 
to  Christ.  This  service  includes  worship  in  the  highest  sense, 
and,  following  modern  English  usage,  the  closer  translation 
of  the  injunction  would  be,  "  Thou  shalt  bow  down  to  (or 
do  homage  to)  the  Lord  Thy  God,  and  Him  only  shalt  thou 
worship."  Satan  is  not,  in  the  story,  represented  as  having 
asked  for  latreia,  but  for  proskunesis.  It  is  indisputable  that, 
as  an  external  form  of  homage,  proskunesis  was  compara 
tively  common,  and,  if  not  intentionally  directed  to  the 
Almighty,  was  not,  in  the  estimation  of  a  Jew,  Divine  wor 
ship.  Our  Lord's  answer  is  a  refusal  of  any  kind  of  homage 
to  Satan,  froskunesis  is  due  to  God,  and  to  God  alone 
latreia  must  be  paid.  Thus  the  phraseology  of  the  text  is. 
when  exactly  weighed,  rather  against  than  for  Mr.  Liddon, 
because  it  tends  to  illustrate  the  distinction  between  terms 
which  severally  express  an  outward  homage  customarily  ren 
dered  to  superiors,  and  the  devout  service  due  to  God  alone. 
I  confess  myself  quite  unable  to  see  the  relevance  of  a  refer 
ence  to  our  Lord's  re-affirmation  of  "the  foundation  law  of 
the  religion  of  Israel."  The  ancient  Israelites  certainly  did 
not  understand  their  law  to  prohibit  bowing  down  before 
superiors  in  office  and  station ;  and  how  can  the  refusal  of 
proskunesis.,  which  the  Tempter  sought  to  obtain  by  a  lie,  be 
at  all  suggestive  that  Jesus,  the  authorized  Messenger  and 
chosen  servant  of  God,  was  bound  to  repudiate  proskunesis, 
if  He  were  not  in  very  truth  God  ? 

So  far  as  we  have  means  of  judging,  the  language  which 
Christ  is  made  to  employ  as  a  quotation  is  not  a  repetition 


OF    THE    RELIGION    OF    ISRAEL.  323 

of  the  precise  words  written  in  Deut.  vi.  13;  (comp.  x.  20). 
The  Hebrew  is,  Thou  shaltfear  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  serve 
Him,)  and  with  this  the  better  (the  Vatican)  MS.  of  the 
Septuagint  Version  agrees,  in  all  but  the  introduction  of 
only.*  The  quotation  is,  however,  sufficiently  near  to  the 
sense  of  what  is  written,  and  is  illustrated  by  the  Sec 
ond  Commandment.  The  verbal  divergence  would  not  be 
worth  notice,  if  the  force  of  a  particular  word  were  not  in 
question. 

Recurring  again  to  a  passage  which  has  already  been  dis 
cussed,  and  shown  to  afford  no  ground  for  such  violently 
comprehensive  deductions  (John  v.  23),  Mr.  Liddon  charac 
teristically  writes  :  "  He  claims  all  the  varied  homage  which 
the  sons  of  men,  in  their  want  and  fulness,  in  their  joy  and 
sorrow,  may  rightfully  and  profitably  pay  to  the  Eternal 
Father :  all  men  are  to  honor  the  Son  even  as  they  honor  the 
Father"  (p.  367). 

When  we  have  left  the  Gospels  and  the  incidents  of  Christ's 
earthly  life,  we  find  only  one  passage,  seemingly  an  adaptation 
of  language  taken  from  Psalm  xcvii.  7,  in  which  even  the 
lower  and  unrestricted  term  for  ho'mage  or  worship  is  applied 
to  Christ.  On  that  passage  (Heb.  i.  6),  Mr.  Liddon  comments : 
"  Apostles  believed  that  when  the  First-begotten  was  brought 
into  the  inhabited  world,  the  angels  of  heaven  were  bidden 
to  worship  Him."  The  exceeding  dignity  and  endowments 
with  which  the  Almighty  Father  enriched  "  the  Son  of  His 
love  "  no  doubt  induced  Apostles  to  believe  that  the  Son  was 
looked  upon  with  humbly  venerating  regard  by  the  angelic 
host ;  but  if  the  First-born  Son  were  the  Everlasting  God 
robed  in  our  nature,  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  what  sense  or 
necessity  there  could  have  been  in  bidding  the  Angels  worship 
Him.  Was  the  Eternal  Personal  Logos,  Who  possessed  every 
attribute  of  Deity,  at  any  period  subsequent  to  the  creation  of 
the  Angels  not  an  Object  of  angelic  worship  ?  The  reason- 

*  Mr.  Turpie,  in  a  collection  of  facts  and  materials,  entitled  "  The  Old 
Testament  in  the  New,"  says  :  "  The  reading  of  the  Alexandrine  MS.  ap 
pears  to  have  been  changed  to  agree  with  the  New  Testament." 


324  DID    CHRIST   INVITE   PRAYER   TO    HIMSELF  ? 

able  inferences  from  the  expressions  to  which  Mr.  Liddon 
points  are  adverse  to  his  doctrine.  If  Apostles  entertained 
the  belief  which  he  ascribes  to  them,  and  along  with  it  a 
belief  in  the  Self- existent,  Infinite  Deity  of  Jesus,  then  their 
understandings  must  have  been  either  peculiarly  constituted, 
or  dominated  by  an  inspiration  of  a  very  remarkable  kind. 

Mr.  Liddon  sedulously  insists  that  prayer  to  Jesus  was  a 
settled  practice  among  the  first  generation  of  Christians, 
and  discovers  intimations,  satisfactory  to  his  own  mind,  of 
our  Lord's  having,  while  upon  earth,  prepared  for,  and  in 
effect,  encouraged  such  prayer. 

"  He  seems  to  invite  prayer  to  Himself,  even  for  the  highest 
spiritual  blessings,  in  such  words  as  those  which  He  addressed 
to  the  woman  of  Samaria:  'If  thou  knewest  the  gift  of 
God,  and  Who  it  is  that  saith  unto  thee,  Give  me  to  drink ; 
thou  wouldest  have  asked  of  Him,  and  He  would  have  given 
thee  living  water '  (St.  John  iv.  10).  He  predicts  indeed  a 
time  when  the  spiritual  curiosity  of  His  disciples  would  be 
satisfied  in  the  joy  of  perfectly  possessing  Him ;  but  He  no 
where  hints  that  He  would  Himself  cease  to  receive  their 
prayers  (St.  John  xvi.  20-22)." 

.To  be  taught  by  Christ  —  "  to  hear  His  word,  and  believe 
on  Him  who  sent  Him  "  (John  v.  24)  —  was,  doubtless,  to 
receive  the  highest  spiritual  blessings ;  and  there  is  no  reason 
to  suppose  that  by  "living  water"  He  meant  more  than  that 
knowledge  of  truth  which  is  the  means  to  nourish  and  develop 
spiritual  life.  The  woman  of  Samaria  did  ask  for  the  living 
water  (ver.  15),  and  the  answer  to  her  request  was  instruction 
as  to  the  nature  of  true  worship ;  a  declaration  that  the  Ob 
ject  of  worship,  the  Father  and  God,  is  a  Spirit ;  and  an 
announcement  that  Jesus  is  the  Messiah  (verses  21-26).  In 
definite  phrases  which  admit  the  intrusion  of  Mr.  Liddon's 
dogmatic  beliefs  may  seem  to  him  to  sanction  those  beliefs, 
but  unbiassed  minds  will  discern  in  the  narrative  of  the  con 
versation  at  Jacob's  Well  no  invitation  to  address  to  Christ 
the  devotional  dependence  and  service  of  prayer ;  and  will 
identify  the  living  water  with  "  the  sanctifying  truth  "  (John 


SKILFUL   DISCRIMINATION   OF   WORDS.  325 

xvii.  IT);  "the  cleansing  word  "  (xv.  3);  "the  word  which 
was  not  Christ's  own,  but  the  Father's  Who  sent  Him"  (xiv. 
24);  "the  doctrine  of  God"  (vii.  17).  Would  not  the 
accustomed  methods  of  ecclesiastical  as  distinguished  from 
rational  interpretation  stimulate  us  to  perceive  in  the  lan 
guage  to  the  Samaritan  woman,  the  gift  of  God,  and  who  it 
is,  &c.,  an  oblique  and  veiled  annunciation  of  Deity  ?  Jesus 
seems  to  identify  the  gift  of  God  with  His  own  gift ;  there 
fore  Jesus  is  God.  This  more  capacious  form  of  deduction 
includes  Mr.  Liddon's. 

In  referring  to  John  xvi.  23,  Mr.  Liddon  says,  "  Here  the 
Greek"  (translated  in  our  Version  ye  shall  ask)  "clearly 
means  question"  The  Greek  verb  may  bear,  but  does  not 
dearly  bear,  the  meaning  Mr.  Liddon  approves.  It  has  pre 
cisely  the  same  ambiguity  which  belongs  to  the  English  verb 
to  ask,  and  sometimes  denotes  interrogation  and  inquiry, 
sometimes  request  and  entreaty.  In  the  "  Gospel  according 
to  John,"  the  places  where  it  occurs  in  the  sense  of  request 
are  rather  more  frequent  than  the  places  where  it  occurs  in 
the  sense  of  question  (see  iv.  31,  40,  47 ;  xii.  21 ;  xiv.  16 ; 
xvi.  26;  xvii.  9,  15,  20;  and  xix.  38,  with  which  compare 
Matt,  xxvii.  58).  The  instance  about  which  Mr.  Liddon's 
verdict  is  so  decided  is  doubtful.  In  xvi.  5,  19,  30,  question 
ing  is  indicated,  but  in  verse  26  requesting.  The  different 
verbs  rendered  as7c  and  pray  are  in  verse  26  so  fhr  synony 
mous  that  both  denote  requesting  ;  and  the  same  is  perhaps 
the  case  in  verse  23,  where  both  are  rendered  ask  (compare 
1  John  v.  10).* 

*  In  his  "Synonyms  of  the  New  Testament,"  Archbishop  Trench  has 
an  article  on  these  verbs.  He  writes  :  "  It  is  very  noteworthy,  and  wit 
nesses  for  the  singular  accuracy  in  the  employment  of  words,  and  in  the 
record  of  that  employment  which  prevails  throughout  the  New  Testa 
ment,  that  our  Lord  never  uses  airtiv  or  aireladat  of  Himself,  in  respect 
of  that  which  He  seeks  on  behalf  of  His  disciples  from  God ;  for  His  is 
not  the  petition  of  the  creature  to  the  Creator,  but  the  request  of  the  Son 
to  the  Father.  The  consciousness  of  His  equal  dignity,  of  His  potent 
and  prevailing  intercession,  speaks  out  in  this,  that  often  as  He  asks  or 
declares  that  He  will  ask  any  thing  of  the  Father,  it  is  always  cpu-ru, 
epu-rjou,  an  asking,  that  is,  as  upon  equal  terms  (John  xiv.  16 ;  xvi  26 ; 


326  "  ON   THAT   DAY   YE    SHALL    ASK,"    ETC. 

I  may  be  mistaken,  but,  as  I  understand  Mr.  Liddon's 
exposition,  the  words  in  that  day  ye  shall  ask  Me  nothing  do 
not  relate  to  the  period  between  our  Lord's  Resurrection  and 
Ascension,  to  which  the  promises  again  a  little  while  and  ye 

xvii.  9,  15,  20).  .  .  .  It  will  follow  that  epurav,  being  thus  proper  for 
Christ,  inasmuch  as  it  has  authority  in  it,  is  not  proper  for  us  ;  and  in  no 
single  instance  is  it  used  in  the  New  Testament  to  express  the  prayer  of 
man  to  God,  of  the  creature  to  the  Creator." 

Now,  about  the  general  accuracy  of  the  distinction  on  which  the 
Archbishop  insists,  there  can  be  no  dispute,  but  the  point  in  debate  is 
New  Testament  usage,  and  more  particularly  that  of  the  Fourth  Gospel, 
where,  it  should  be  observed,  the  more  customary,  appropriate,  and  exact 
words  for  prayer  do  not  occur.  The  term  which  the  Archbishop  con 
ceives  "  to  have  authority  in  it,"  and  to  denote  "  asking  as  upon  equal 
terms,"  denotes  solicitation,  begging,  the  humble  request  of  an  inferior  to 
a  superior  —  in  Mark  vii.  26  ;  Luke  iv.  38;  John  iv.  40,  47;  xix.  88;  1 
John  v.  16  (comp.  Ps.  cxxii.  6).  On  comparing  the  parallel  places  in  the 
Evangelists,  it  will  be  seen  that  three  of  them  in  narrating  the  solicita 
tion  of  Joseph  for  the  body  of  Jesus  use  one,  and  the  fourth  (John  xix. 
38)  the  other  of  the  two  verbs,  between  which  the  Archbishop  so  elabo 
rately  discriminates.  Whatever,  therefore,  may  be  argued  on  general 
grounds  against  the  fitness  of  the  term  epuTiiv  to  express  petitioning,  we 
cannot  deny  that,  in  the  hands  of  the  New  Testament  writers,  it  some 
times  covers  prayerful  petitioning,  and  is  especially  likely  to  do  so  in 
passages  of  the  last  Evangelist,  because  in  the  phraseology  of  supplica 
tion  his  vocabulary  is  peculiarly  narrow,  and  has  the  remarkable  feature 
of  being  without  words  for  prayer  which  are  at  once  both  common  and 
precise. 

With  regard  to  "  the  singular  accuracy  in  the  employment  of  words," 
&c.,  on  which  Archbishop  Trench  dilates,  our  Lord  himself  uses  a  suppli 
catory  verb  in  stating  that  he  had  prayed  for  Peter  (Luke  xxii.  32) ;  and 
in  Matt.  xix.  13,  the  Evangelist  describes  the  "request  of  the  Son"  on 
behalf  of  others,  by  a  term  which  is  confined  to  the  devotional  entreaties 
"  of  the  creature  to  the  Creator,"  and  is  also  constantly  employed  to 
describe  the  prayers  offered  by  Jesus  to  the  Father  (see  Matt.  xiv.  23  ; 
xxvi.  36,  39,  42,  44,  and  parallels  in  Mark  and  Luke ;  Mark  i.  35 ;  vi.  46 ; 
Luke  iii.  21  ;  v.  16  ;  vi.  12  ;  ix.  18,  28,  29;  xi  1).  The  earlier  Evangel 
ists,  and  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (v.  7),  appear  to  have 
thought  Christ's  prayers  for  Himself  the  prayers  of  a  man  to  God  ;  and, 
since  Christ  had  no  proper  human  personality,  an  expository  argument 
which  turns  on  a  nice  verbal  distinction  between  His  requests  on  behalf 
of  Himself,  and  his  requests  on  behalf  of  His  disciples,  pertains  to  that 
lofty  and  obscure  region  into  which  only  minds  ecclesiastically  illumi 
nated  can  venture. 


327 

shall  see  Me  (ver.  16),  and  I  will  see  you  again  (ver.  22), 
seem  naturally  to  point ;  but  to  the  period  when  His  visible 
bodily  presence  would  be  entirely  withdrawn.  Jesus,  there 
fore,  will  be  concluded  to  have  meant  that,  when  His  disci 
ples  could  no  longer  put  questions  to  Him,  they  would  no 
longer  put  questions.  But  if  our  Lord  spoke  only  of  the 
indulgence  of  an  inquisitive  spiritual  curiosity  while  He  was 
visibly  present,  what  connection  has  His  saying  with  prayer 
to  Him?  If  He  is  supposed  to  have  meant  that,  after  the 
Holy  Ghost  should  have  become  their  Teacher,  the  Apostles 
were  no  longer  to  seek  instruction  from  Himself,  there  is,  of 
course,  no  distinct  prohibition  of  asking  in  every  sense  ;  but 
to  argue,  "  He  nowhere  hints  that  He  would  Himself  cease  to 
receive  their  prayers,"  is  transparently  sophistical,  since  no 
proof  is  discoverable  of  His  ever  having  been  addressed  in 
prayer,  or  ever  having  enjoined  the  offering  of  devotional 
petitions  to  Himself.  The  remainder  of  the  passage  from 
which  Mr.  Liddon  quotes  undoubtedly  enjoins  prayer  to. the 
Father,  in  the  Name  of  Christ  (compare  Matt,  xviii.  19,  20). 
From  the  fact  of  Christians  being  described  (Acts  ix.  14, 
21 ;  1  Cor.  i.  2)  as  "  those  who  call  upon  the  Name  of  Jesus 
Christ,"  Mr.  Liddon  unfalteringly  makes  the  largest  in 
ferences.  He  could  not  be  more  confident,  if  the  verb 
translated  to  call  upon  were  so  perfectly  definite  and  circum 
scribed  as  to  admit  no  other  meaning  than  to  pro y.  But  the 
term  fmxaJLetfrdai,  on  which  he  builds,  is  unquestionably  loose 
and  ambiguous.  When  the  reference  is  to  the  Eternal 

O 

Father,  the  phrases  to  call  iipon  the  Lord  and  upon  the  Name 
of  the  Lord  may  signify  not  only  openly  proclaimed  trust 
and  allegiance,  but  prayer  in  the  strictest  sense.  Numerous 
instances  in  the  Septuagint  attest  this.  The  few  examples 
cf  New  Testament  usage  in  conjunction  with  the  Name  of 
God  do  not  so  specifically  as  Mr.  Liddon  fancies  signify 
prayer.  Even  the  quotation  from  Joel,  in  Acts  ii.  21 ;  Rom. 
x.  13  (comp.  Pss.  Ixxix.  6;  Ixxx.  18;  Jer.  x.  25),  may  in 
dicate  summarily  the  acknowledged  general  standing  and 
relation  of  God's  servants,  rather  than  the  one  particular 


328         "  CALLING   UPON   THE   NAME   OF  THE  LORD." 

practice,  prayer.  Calling  upon  God  may  be  a  brief  equiva 
lent  for  undisguised  and  habitual  service  of  God,  the  public 
confession  of  being  His,  obeying  and  worshipping  Him; 
prayer  would  be  involved  and  implied,  but  not  prominently, 
and  still  less  exclusively  specified.  Dean  Alford  (Revised 
Version)  construes  1  Pet.  i.  17,  if  ye  call  upon  as  your  Father •, 
Him,  &c.,  a  construction  which  may  be  disputed,  but  is  prob 
ably  right,  and  has,  at  least,  the  merit  of  carrying  over  the 
ambiguity  of  the  Greek  into  the  English. 

But  whatever  may  be  the  exact  force  of  the  expressions, 
to  call  upon,  and  to  call  upon  the  Name  of,  when  the  refer 
ence  is  to  our  God  and  Father,  they  need  not  when  the 
reference  is  not  to  Him  have  the  same  force.  No  one  will 
pretend  the  verb  is  by  usage  confined  to  prayer,  or  capable 
of  only  one  sense.  It  is  used  of  appealing  to  CaBsar,  where 
the  appeal  is  plainly  not  devotional  petitioning  (Acts  xxv.  11, 
12,  21,  25;  xxvi.  32;  xxviii.  19).  St.  Paul  employs  it  (2 
Cor.  i.  23),  in  the  imprecation,  I  call  God  for  a  witness  ^lpon 
my  soul.  In  the  passive,  it  denotes  the  being  surnamed 
(Acts  i.  23;  iv.  36;  x.  5,  18,  32 ;  xi.  13 ;  xii.  12,  25;  Heb.  xi. 
16,  comp.  Acts  xv.  17 ;  James  ii.  7).  This  passive  use,  in 
connection  with  persons  and  things  belonging  and  dedicated 
to  the  Almighty,  —  called  by  the  Name  of  Jehovah,  —  might 
be  abundantly  illustrated  from  the  Septuagint,  and  tends  to 
show  that  those  who  called  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  were 
often  not  pointedly  suppliants,  but  persons  upon  whom  God^s 
Name  was  called;  that  is,  who  proclaimed  their  fealty  to 
God,  and  were  notoriously  His  servants. 

The  alleged  practice  of  prayer  to  Jesus  requires,  therefore, 
to  be  substantiated  by  some  better  evidence  than  is  supplied 
by  the  phrases  on  which  Mr.  Liddon  is  compelled  to  rely. 
The  "  calling  upon  the  Name  of  Jesus  Christ,"  which  specially 
distinguished  Christians,  was  not,  upon  any  reasonable  esti 
mate  of  the  evidence,  praying  to  Christ  as  to  God,  but  pro 
fessing  faith  in  Him,  owning  him  to  be  Leader,  Master, 
Messiah ;  confessing  Him  before  men ;  baptizing  into  His 
Name ;  working  miracles  in  His  Name ;  and,  according  to 


His  own  directions,  asking  the  Father  in  His  Name.  The 
prominence  Christ's  followers  gave  to  His  Name  as  that  of 
their  Lord  and  Head  in  the  Kingdom  God  was  establishing 
through  Him  wras  a  calling  His  Name  upon  themselves,  and 
caused  them  to  be  designated  Christians,  or  to  have  His 
Name  "  called  upon  "  them. 

Mr.  Liddon  says  :  "  It  cannot  be  doubted  that  in  Acts  xxii. 
16 ;  2  Tim.  ii.  22,  the  Lord  Who  is  addressed  is  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ."  In  the  former  of  these  texts,  the  calling  on 
His  (i.e.,  Christ's)  Name  is  joined  with  Baptism,  and  more 
probably  denotes  profession  of  Christian  faith  and  discipleship 
than  prayer  to  Jesus.  The  context  (ver.  14)  certainly  does 
not  put  Jesus  the  Just  (comp.  Matt,  xxvii.  19 ;  Luke  xxiii. 
47 ;  Acts  iii.  14 ;  vii.  52)  on  a  level  with  the  God  of  our 
Fathers  /  and,  in  relating  what  took  place  during  his  trance 
(verses  17-21),  St.  Paul  betrays  no  consciousness  of  having 
beheld  and  conversed  with  One  Who  was  in  Essential 
Nature  and  dignity  on  a  level  with  the  JBlessed  and  Only 
Potentate,  Whom  never  man  saw  nor  can  see. 

In  2  Tim.  ii.  22,  call  on  may  differ  little,  if  at  all,  in  sense, 
from  name  the  Name  of  (ver.  19),  and  may  stand  for  "ac 
knowledge  and  serve,"  rather  than  pray  to  ;  the  details  of 
the  acknowledgment  and  service  depending  on  the  position 
and  claims  of  the  Being  designated.  Jesus  is  probably  the 
Lord  referred  to,  and  "them  that  call  on  Him"  are  probably 
identical  with  the  Lord's  servants  (ver.  24)  ;  but  there  is 
room  for  doubt,  because  in  verse  19  the  true  reading  is,  let 
every  one  that  nameth  the  Name  of  the  Lord,  &c.,  and  if  in 
that  verse  the  writer  intended  to  quote  from  the  Old  Tes 
tament  (see  Numb.  xvi.  5 ;  Nahum,  i.  7 ;  Ps.  xcvii.  10),  the 
Lord  will  be  Jehovah.  The  best,  though  far  from  a  con 
clusive  argument  for  the  opinion  that  Jesus  is  designated 
(ver.  22)  is  the  likelihood  that  servant  of  the  Lord  (ver. 
24)  means  servant  of  Christ. 

But  it  is  contended  the  true  force  of  the  expression  call 
upon  "is  illustrated  by  the  dying  prayer  of  St.  Stephen, 
whom  his  murderers  stoned  "  while  he  was  "praying,  and 


330  DYING   PRAYERS    OF   ST.    STEPHEN. 

saying,  Lord  Jesus,  receive  my  spirit."  The  Name  God  is, 
I  need  scarcely  remark,  not  in  the  original,  and  its  introduc 
tion  into  the  Anglican  Version  was  unwarranted.  The 
former  of  Stephen's  invocations  (Acts  vii.  59,  60)  was, 
according  to  the  narrative,  indubitably  directed  to  Christ, 
the  latter  not  indubitably.  The  account  is  too  condensed 
and  undetailed  to  sanction  positive  conclusions.  There  may 
have  been  an  interval  between  the  dying  martyr's  petitions. 
If  the  first  petition  was  uttered  either  at  the  commence 
ment  of  the  stoning  or  during  the  preparations  for  the 
stoning,  or  when  the  mob  "  ran  upon  him  and  cast  him 
out  of  the  city,"  —  and  the  second  just  before  the  moment 
of  death,  —  the  supposition  that  the  second  petition  was 
directed  to  God,  the  Father,  is  the  more  probable.  But,  if 
the  petitions  followed  each  other  in  quick  succession,  there 
will  be  a  probability  both  were  addressed  to  Christ,  and  the 
change  of  posture,  he  kneeled  down  (assuming  that  to  have 
been  a  voluntary  act),  and  the  difference  between  the  appel 
lations,  Lord  Jesus  and  Lord,  will  not  justify  inferences. 

Mr.  Liddon,  therefore,  travels  beyond  the  firm  ground  of 
the  record,  in  the  incautious  confidence  of  his  assertions,  — 
"  The  words  which  were  addressed  by  Jesus  to  the  Father 
(Luke  xxiii.  34,  46)  are  by  St.  Stephen  addressed  to  Jesus. 
To  Jesus  Stephen  turns  in  that  moment  of  supreme  agony; 
to  Jesus  he  prays  for  pardon  on  his  murderers  ;  to  Jesus,  as 
to  the  King  of  the  world  of  spirits,  he  commends  his  parting 
soul."  To  the  objection  that  Stephen's  words  were  "  only  an 
ejaculation  forced  from  him  in  the  extremity  of  his  anguish, 
and  that,  as  such,  they  are  highly  unfitted  to  be  made  the 
premise  of  a  theological  inference,"  Mr.  Liddon  replies  :  — 

"  The  question  is,  whether  the  earliest  apostolical  Church 
did  or  did  not  pray  to  Jesus  Chrjst.  And  St.  Stephen's  dying 
prayer  is  strictly  to  the  point.  An  '  ejaculation  '  may  show 
more  clearly  than  any  set  formal  prayer  the  ordinary  currents 
of  devotional  thought  and  feeling;  an  ejaculation  is  more 
instinctive,  more  spontaneous,  and  therefore  a  truer  index  of 
a  man's  real  mind,  than  a  prayer  which  has  been  used  for 


DYING   PRAYERS   OF   ST.    STEPHEN.  331 

years.  And  how  could  the  martyr's  cry  to  Jesus  have  been 
the  product  of  a  '  thoughtless  impulse  '  ?  Dying  men  do  not 
cling  to  devotional  fancies  or  to  precarious  opinions  ;  the 
soul  in  its  last  agony  instinctively  falls  back  upon  its  deepest 
certainties."  After  drawing  attention  to  the  faith  and  inspi 
ration  (Acts  vi.  5 ;  vii.  55),  official  position,  and  almost  apos 
tolic  rank,  of  Stephen,  Mr.  Lid  don  proceeds :  "  Is  it  urged 
that  St.  Stephen's  prayer  was  offered  under  the  exceptional 
circumstance  of  a  vision  of  Christ  vouchsafed  in  mercy  to 
His  dying  servant  ?  But  it  does  not  enter  into  the  definition 
of  prayer  or  worship  that  it  must  of  necessity  be  addressed 
to  an  invisible  Person.  And  the  vision  of  Jesus  standing:  at 

O 

the  right  hand  of  God  may  have  differed  in  the  degree  of 
sensible  clearness,  but  in  its  general  nature  it  did  not  differ, 
from  that  sight  upon  which  the  eye  of  every  dying  Christian 
has  rested  from  the  beginning.  St.  Stephen  would  not  have 
prayed  to  Jesus  Christ  then,  if  he  had  never  prayed  to  Him 
before  ;  the  vision  of  Jesus  would  not  have  tempted  him  to 
innovate  upon  the  devotional  law  of  his  life ;  the  sight  of 
Jesus  would  have  only  carried  him  in  thought  upwards  to 
the  Father,  if  the  Father  alone  had  been  the  Object  of  the 
Church's  earliest  adoration.  St.  Stephen  would  never  have 
prayed  to  Jesus  if  he  had  been  taught  that  such  pj-ayer  was 
hostile  to  the  supreme  prerogatives  of  God  ;  and  the  Apostles, 
as  monotheists,  must  have  taught  him  thus,  unless  they  had 
believed  that  Jesus  is  God,  Who  with  the  Father  is  wor 
shipped  and  glorified  "  (pp.  369,  370). 

The  argument  is  put  with  all  the  dexterity  of  accomplished 
special  pleadership,  and  also  with  the  suppression,  misrepre 
sentation,  and  unfairness  which  attaches  to  mere  advocacy 
of  foregone  conclusions.  Granting,  what  cannot  be  proved, 
that  the  last  words  of  Stephen  were  directed  to  Christ,  it  is 
not  true  they  are  equivalent  to  the  words  addressed  by  the 
crucified  Jesus  to  the  Father.  Stephen  asks  that  the  guilt 
of  their  crime  may  not  be  imputed  to,  or  laid  to  the  charge 
of,  his  murderers.  The  term  he  is  recorded  to  have  used  is 
employed  in  a  metaphorical  and  unusual  sense,  and  is  not,  in 


332  DYING   PRAYEES   OF   ST.    STEPHEN. 

this  sense,  found  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament.  It  is 
quite  distinct  from  the  term  which,  in  Luke  xxiii.  34,  signifies 
forgiving ;  and  before  we  can  determine  its  precise  force  in  a 
petition  to  Christ,  we  must  have  ascertained  the  relation  in 
which  Christ  stands  to  God,  the  Sole  ultimate  Judge,  and 
Source  of  pardon.  Theologians,  pledged  to  engraft  ecclesi 
astical  dogmas  upon  Scripture  language,  may  experience 
insuperable  difficulty  in  withstanding  the  temptation  to  con 
struct  from  a  single  dubious  word ;  but  unshackled  minds  will 
not,  in  the  absence  of  corroborating  testimony,  be  content  on 
the  strength  of  one  ambiguous  expression  to  believe  Christ 
is  put  on  a  level  with  God  as  the  Pardoner  of  sin.  If  we 
asume  the  prayer  to  have  been  directed  to  Christ,  and  assume, 
further,  its  designed  purport  to  have  been  :  "  When  Thou,  as 
Judge  of  all,  weighest  their  actions  in  Thy  balance,  do  not 
place  tins  sin  in  the  scale  against  them,"  there  still  remains 
the  stubborn  fact  that  rational  interpretation  imperatively 
demands  the  supposition  of  Stephen's  having  shared  the  per 
suasion  of  the  Apostles  who  held  Jesus  to  be,  in  the  func 
tions  of  judgment,  subordinate,  representative,  and  delegated 
—  ordained  of  God  to  be  the  Judge,  &c.  —  a  Man  by  lohom 
God  will  judge  the  world  in  righteousness^  in  His  appointed 
day  (Acts  x.  42  ;  xvii.  31). 

The  artificial  and  forced  character  of  the  reasoning  where 
by  Mr.  Liddon  labors  to  establish  the  palpable  fallacy  that 
circumstances  undeniably  marvellous  and  exceptional  would 
lead  to  no  exceptional  results,  and  divert  in  no  degree  the 
current  of  religious  thought  and  emotion,  hardly  calls  for 
exposure.  A  vision  of  the  Divine  glory,  and  of  Jesus  stand 
ing  on  the  right  hand  of  that  glory,  was,  we  may  fairly  pre 
sume,  calculated  to  give  Jesus  a  very  realized  prominence  in 
the  martyr's  mind.  The  "  deepest  certainties,"  on  which  such 
a  vision  would  impel  the  soul  to  fall  back,  would  be  the  cer 
tainties  of  Christ's  exaltation,  Messiahship,  and  possession  of 
dignity  and  power  bestowed  by  God. 

Mr.  Liddon  tacitly  assumes  that  Stephen's  petition,  being 
addressed  to  Christ,  must  have  been  addressed  to  Him  as 


DYING   PRAYERS   OF   ST.    STEPHEN.  333 

God,  and  then,  from  the  petition  itself,  he  infers  "  Christ  is 
God."  But,  if  we  search  for  "  indices  of  Stephen's  real  mind," 
in  the  discourse  which  issued  in  his  martyrdom,  we  do  not 
find  any  trace  of  his  esteeming  Christ  to  be  God.  On  the 
contrary,  his  words  clearly  bespeak  his  conviction  that  Christ 
was  inferior  to  God.  We  cannot  doubt  he  had  an  eye  to 
Jesus,  in  quoting  the  saying  of  Moses,  "  A  prophet  shall  God 
raise  up  unto  you  from  among  your  brethren,  as  He  raised  up 
me  "  (Acts  vii.  37 ;  comp.  iii.  22),  and  we  may  well  doubt 
whether  he  understood  the  saying  to  foretell  a  Personal  In 
carnation  of  the  One  Uncreated  Nature.  He  was  content  to 
speak  of  Jesus  as  the  Just  or  Righteous  (Man),  whom  the 
Jews  had  betrayed  and  murdered  (ver.  52),  and  the  state 
ment  which,  to  his  enemies,  had  the  sound  of  blasphemy,  was 
very  far  indeed  removed  from  an  affirmation  of  Christ's  God 
head.  That  vision  which,  "  in  its  general  nature  did  not  differ 
from  the  sight  upon  which  the  eye  of  every  dying  Christian 
has  rested  from  the  beginning,"  was  the  Son  of  Man  stand 
ing  on  the  right  hand  of  God.  Beneath  the  revealing  light 
of  ecclesiastical  inspiration  this  may  mean  Co-eternal  and  Co 
equal  God  standing  on  the  right  hand  of  the  One  God ;  but 
beneath  the  light  of  reason  it  has  a  less  profound  significance. 
Stephen  appears  to  have  beheld  a  brightness  which  indicated 
the  Divine  Presence,  and,  by  the  side  of  that  brightness,  the 
glorified  Man  Christ  Jesus  in  an  attitude  evincing  readiness 
to  succor  and  receive  His  servant,  perchance  to  punish  His 
servant's  destroyers.  If  the  spiritual  senses  of  a  dying 
Christian  were  opened  to  perceive  ministering  spirits  around 
him,  he  might,  I  think,  quite  innocently,  and  without  any 
"  innovation  upon  the  devotional  law  of  his  life,"  say  to  them, 
Receive  my  spirit!  for  he  would  address  them  as  God's  mes 
sengers,  and  with  a  meaning  distinct  from  that  which  he 
would  put  into  his  words,  if  he  were  appealing  to  God  in 
prayer.  And  if  he  were  expiring  under  the  hands  of  wicked 
violence,  and  believed  that  those  ministering  spirits,  who 
were  ready  to  receive  him,  were  able  also  to  inflict  vengeance 
on  his  murderers,  he  might,  without  conscious  or  unconscious 


334  RESTRICTED    USE    OF   PRECATORY   TERMS. 

"hostility  to  the  supreme  prerogatives  of  God,"  deprecate 
such  vengeance,  in  the  benevolent  entreaty,  lay  not  this  sin 
to  their  charge.  The  numerous  members  of  the  older 
branches  of  the  Church  Universal  are  as  strict  Monotheists 
as  Mr.  Liddon  himself  is,  or  as  he  supposes  the  Apostles  to 
have  been,  and  yet  they  fail  to  discern  in  the  invocation  of 
glorified  Beings  an  invasion  of  the  Divine  rights.  The  his 
torically  manifested  consciousness  of  the  Church  (more  par 
ticularly  since  her  clearer  apprehension  of -the  mystery  Mr. 
Liddon  defends)  has  steadily  contradicted  the  idea  that  Chris 
tian  Monotheism  restricts  all  venerating  homage  and  prayer 
ful  invocation  to  God.  Orthodox  Anglicans  should  remember 
obvious  facts,  before  pronouncing  what  "the  Apostles,  as 
Monotheists,  must  have  taught." 

Mr.  Liddon  argues :  "  It  does  not  enter  into  the  definition 
of  prayer  or  worship  that  it  should  be  addressed  to  an  invis 
ible  Person,"  intending,  of  course,  prayer  or  worship  such  as 
is  due  to  God.  Now  before  this  remark  can  have  the  smallest 
weight,  proof  must  have  been  given  that  God  is  ever  other 
than  an  invisible  Person.  The  truer  shape  of  the  proposition 
is :  petitions  and  homage  offered  to  a  visible  Being  are  to  be 
distinguished  from  player  and  worship  offered  to  God,  unless 
there  is  independent  and  adequate  testimony  the  visible  Being 
is  God. 

The  fact  that  the  verb  to  call  upon  is  accompanied,  in  the 
story  of  Stephen's  death,  by  explanatory  adjuncts  proving  it 
to  have  been  in  that  instance  connected  with  prayer,  is  cer 
tainly  no  sufficient  evidence  for  its  usual  connection.  Stephen 
named  the  Name  of,  or  invoked  Christ,  "and  said"  what 
were  words  of  prayer ;  but  calling  upon  the  name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  might  have  introduced  language  of  a 
different  kind,  as  profession  of  faith,  avowal  of  attachment, 
and  discipleship.  The  use  of  a  vague  term,  indisputably 
open  to  several  varieties  of  meaning,  is  ridiculously  inade 
quate  testimony  for  an  alleged  universal,  and  specially  char 
acteristic,  devotional  practice. 

An  Orthodox  Christian,  educated  to  believe,  and  officially 


RESTRICTED    USE    OP   PRECATORY   TERMS.  385 

pledged  to  maintain  a  particular  doctrine,  is  perhaps  literally 
unable  to  see  what  militates  against  his  own  positions,  and 
therefore  Mr.  Liddon  may  be  excused  for  not  having  noticed 
a  fact  which  demolishes  his  cunningly  woven  theories  about 
Apostolic  prayers  to  Jesus  Glorified.  TJQoan^Gda^  n^oasv-^ 
dfijGts,  ev%ea6ai,  «'/?/,  are,  in  the  New  Testament,  words  of 
specific  and  restricted  application,  denoting  prayers  and  vows 
to  the  Almighty.  The  Lord  Jesus  is,  in  no  single  instance, 
the  Person  to  Whom  the  devotions  indicated  by  these  words 
are  directed.  The  use  of  the  three  former,  to  express  prayers 
to  God,  is  exceedingly  frequent.  If  the  Christians  of  Apos 
tolic  days  were  in  the  habit  of  praying  to  Christ  as  God ;  if 
petitions  addressed  to  Him  were  an  element  in  their  united 
and  their  individual  worship,  how  comes  it  to  pass  their  peti 
tions  are  never  described  by  the  accustomed,  familiar,  and 
specially  appropriated  terms  ?  Why  does  no  Canonical 
Writer  furnish  an  example  of  the  application  of  properly 
precatory  terms,  with  reference  to  a  form  of  Christian  devo 
tion  supposed  to  be  prevalent  and  distinctive  ? 

The  verb  deTaQcu  is  used  of  prayer  to  God,  but  not  limited 
to  that  use,  being  sometimes  employed  of  earnest  requests 
made  by  one  man  to  another.  It  occurs  of  prayer  to  God 
ten  or  eleven  times,  and  among  them  of  Christ's  own  prayer 
to  the  Almighty  for  the  spiritual  preservation  of  Simon 
Peter  (Luke  xxii.  32).  It  describes  requests  made  to  our 
Lord  while  He  was  upon  earth  (Luke  v.  12 ;  viii.  28,  38 ;  ix. 
38),  and  likewise  requests  made  to  His  disciples  (Luke  ix. 
40 ;  see  also  Acts  viii.  34 ;  xxi.  39 ;  2  Cor.  x.  2 ;  Gal.  iv.  12, 
and  other  texts),  but  it  describes  no  requests  made  to  our 
Lord  in  Heaven. 

These  facts  explain,  and,  from  the  Protestant  advocates' 
point  of  view,  palliate  the  vaporing  expository  efforts  which 
have  been  so  often  concentrated  upon  the  phrase,  to  call  upon 
the  Name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  The  most  must  be  made  of 
that  phrase.  The  weak  side  must  be  covered  in  some  fashion, 
and,  with  the  multitude  of  sympathizing  readers,  a  pliant  verb 
and  bold  assertions  will  pass  muster  undetected. 


336  IS   CHRIST   ADDRESSED   IN   ACTS   I,    24? 

In  the  first  eight  chapters  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  the 
simple  title  Lord  very  rarely  betokens  Christ,  but  it  might 
betoken  Him,  and  there  is  a  case  in  which  Orthodox  exigen 
cies  demand  that  it  should  be  understood  to  do  so.  When 
Matthias  was  elected  to  the  Apostleship,  prayer  (described 
by  the  proper  and  most  frequent  term)  was  made  to  the 
Almighty  (Acts  i.  24,  comp.  iv.  29,  30).  Mr.  Liddon,  encour 
aged  by  some  previous  commentators,  has  been  able  to  write 
deliberately  as  follows :  "  It  would  seem  more  than  probable 
that  the  prayer  offered  by  the  assembled  Apostles  at  the 
election  of  St.  Matthias  was  addressed  to  Jesus  Glorified  " 
(p.  368).  The  particular  epithet  Heart-knower,  by  which 
the  Most  High  is  described,  is  found  only  in  one  other  place 
in  the  New  Testament,  viz.,  Acts  xv.  8,  where  it  is,  beyond 
doubt,  applied  to  God  (comp.  Luke  xvi.  15).  There  is  no 
shadow  of  reason  for  asserting  it  has  not  the  same  application 
in  Acts  i.  24.  To  assume  it  there  refers  to  the  Lord  Jesus 
is  to  frame  a  conjecture  utterly  devoid  of  probability. 

But  Mr.  Liddon  contends,  "  The  selection  of  the  twelve 
Apostles  is  always  ascribed  to  Jesus  Christ  (Acts  i.  2 ;  Luke 
vi.  13;  John  vi.  70;  xiii.  18;  xv.  16,  19) ;"  and  though  "St. 
Paul  was  indeed  accustomed  to  trace  up  his  apostleship  to  the 
Eternal  Father  as  the  ultimate  Source  of  all  authority  (Gal. 
i.  15;  2  Cor.  i.  1;  Eph.  i.  1 ;  2  Tim.  i.  1),  yet  this  is  not 
inconsistent  with  the  fact  that  Jesus  Christ  chose  and  sent 
each  and  all  of  the  Apostles."  Certainly,  it  is  not  incon 
sistent  with  the  fact  that  Jesus  Christ  was,  while  upon  earth, 
God's  visible  Instrument  and  Organ  in  the  choosing  and 
sending,  but  it  is  unfavorable  to  the  supposition  that  Jesus 
Christ,  when  no  longer  upon  earth,  was,  not  only  on  God's 
behalf,  but  independently,  the  Selecter  and  Authorize!-.  In 
Acts  xv.  7,  Peter  says,  "From  ancient  days  God  made 
choice  among  us,  that  the  Gentiles  by  my  mouth  should  hear 
the  word  of  the  Gospel,  and  believe;"  a  saying  on  which 
Mr.  Liddon  remarks,  "  that  God  can  have  no  reference  to 
our  Lord  is  an  assumption.  Moreover,  St.  Peter  is  clearly 
referring,  not  to  his  original  call  to  the  Apostolate,  but  to 


THE    EPITHET    "  HEART-KNOWER."  337 

his  being  directed  to  evangelize  the  Gentiles."  To  the 
Church  Catholic  the  whole  mystery  of  the  Trinity  is,  of 
course,  latent  in  the  denomination  God.  "  One  God,  the 
Father;  and  one  Lord,  Jesus  Christ,"  may,  for  a  Church 
inspired  so  to  understand,  be  the  inspired  mode  of  intimat 
ing  the  One  God,  and  the  One  Lord,  to  be  each  Personally, 
and  in  the  full  sense,  God,  and  nevertheless  both  together 
One  God.  With  this  I  have  nothing  to  do ;  but  in  the  esti 
mate  of  reason,  the  ever  recurring  distinctive  and  separating 
appellations  of  God  and  Christ,  and  the  reservation  from 
Christ  of  the  title  God,  which  is  so  many  hundred  times 
applied  to  the  Almighty  Father,  are  revelations  that  God 
and  Christ  are  not  both  comprised  in  the  One  Uncreated 
Nature,  and  that,  therefore,  in  the  lack  of  clear  evidence  to 
the  contrary,  the  Protestant  investigator  of  Scripture  "as 
sumes"  nothing  by  holding  that,  in  Acts  xv.  7,  the  denomi 
nation  God  "  can  have  no  reference  to  our  Lord."  Unless 
the  expression,  from  ancient  days,  is  transformed  by  expo 
sition,  the  reference  will  be  to  an  election  preceding  and 
determining  St.  Peter's  call  by  Christ  to  the  Apostolate. 
And  if  Christ  did,  as  Mr.  Liddon  believes,  give  the  command 
ascribed  to  Him  in  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  the  direction  to  evan 
gelize  the  Gentiles  proceeded  from  Him  as  much  as  the 
selection  of  the  twelve  Apostles.  Are  we  to  imagine  that, 
when  His  solemn  parting  command  was  forgotten,  our  Lord, 
acting  not  in  His  distinct  Personality,  but  in  the  Unity  of 
the  Father,  made  choice  of  Peter,  and  issued  fresh  injunc 
tions  ? 

"The  epithet  Ileart-knower,  and  still  more  the  word  Lord, 
are,"  we  are  informed,  "  equally  applicable  to  the  Father  and 
to  Jesus  Christ.  For  the  former,  see  John  i.  50;  ii.  25;  vi. 
64;  xxi.  17.  It  was  natural  that  the  Apostles  should  thus 
apply  to  Jesus  Christ  to  fill  up  the  vacant  chair,  unless  they 
had  believed  Him  to  be  out  of  the  reach  of  prayer,  or  in 
capable  of  helping  them."  The  texts  referred  to  are  quite 
insufficient  for  the  end  for  which  they  are  cited.  Our  Lord's 
acquaintance  with  the  human  heart,  and  profound  insight 

22 


338  ANANIAS'S   REMONSTRATIVE   PRAYER. 

into  human  purposes  and  character,  must,  since  they  are  not 
specifically  attributed  to  inherent  Deity,  be  regarded  as  im 
parted  gifts,  flowing  from  the  anointing  and  presence  of  God's 
Spirit.  Peter  knew  what  was  in  the  heart  of  Ananias  and 
Sapphira  (Acts  v.  2-9),  but  the  circumstance  would  n:>t 
warrant  the  application  to  him  of  the  designation,  IZhower 
of  hearts.  However,  mere  assertion  that  a  rare  epithet  is 
"  equally  applicable "  to  two  Beings,  when  it  is  only  known 
to  have  been  applied  to  One  of  them,  is  not  worth  attention.* 
The  assumption  of  the  point  to  be  proved  is  very  manifest 
in  the  sentence,  "  It  was  natural  that,"  &c. 

Mr.  Liddon's  comments  on  Acts  ix.  13,  14,  are  perhaps 
more  original  than  convincing :  — 

"The  reply  of  Ananias,  to  whom  Jesus  appeared  in  a 
vision,  and  desired  him  to  go  to  the  newly  converted  Saul  of 
Tarsus,  is  an  instance  of  that  species  of  prayer  in  which 
the  soul  trustfully  converses  with  God,  even  to  the  verge 
of  argument  and  remonstrance,  while  yet  it  is  controlled 
by  the  deepest  sense  of  God's  awful  greatness :  '  Lord,  I 
have  heard  by  many  of  this  man,  how  much  evil  he  hath 
done  to  Thy  saints  at  Jerusalem :  and  here  he  hath  author 
ity  from  the  chief  priests  to  bind  all  that  call  on  Thy  Name.' 
.  .  .  .  Ananias's  remonstrance  is  a  prayer;  it  is  a  spiritual 
colloquy ;  it  is  a  form  of  prayer  which  implies  daily,  hourly 
familiarity  with  its  Object ;  it  is  the  language  of  a  soul 
habituated  to  constant  communion  with  Jesus.  It  shows 
very  remarkably  how  completely  Jesus  occupies  the  whole 
field  of  vision  in  the  soul  of  His  servants.  The  '  saints ' 
whom  Saul  of  Tarsus  has  persecuted  at  Jerusalem  are  the 
'saints,'  it  is  not  said  of  God,  but  of  Jesus;  the  Name 
which  is  called  upon  by  those  whom  Saul  had  authority 
to  bind  at  Damascus  is  the  Name  of  Jesus.  Ananias  does 
not  glance  at  one  higher  than  Jesus,  as  if  Jesus  were  lower 

*  Dr.  Bloomfield  thought  the  epithet  "equally  applicable  "  to  Christ, 
but  recorded  the  acknowledgment :  "  Certainly  the  appellation  is  not  un- 
frequent  in  the  Old  Testament,  Josephus,  and  Philo,  as  applied  to  God 
the  .Father." 


PAUL'S  FIRST  PRAYER  TO  JESUS.  339 

than  God ;  Jesus  is  to  Ananias  his  God,  the  Recipient  of 
his  worship,  and  yet  the  Friend  before  Whom  he  can  plead 
the  secret  thoughts  of  his  heart  with  earnestness  and  free 
dom"  (p.  370). 

Is  then  the  sight  of  God,  or  the  hearing  of  God's  voice,  in 
a  vision,  so  ordinary  and  simple  an  experience  as  to  encour 
age  a  reverent  familiarity,  and  to  put  the  soul  of  the  worship 
per  at  ease  ?  To  most  minds  the  trustfulness  and  freedom, 
"  even  to  the  verge  of  argument  and  remonstrance,"  will 
irresistibly  suggest  that  Ananias  did  not  apprehend  the 
Object  of  his  vision  to  be  the  Eternal  God.  What  tokens 
are  there  of  "the  deepest  sense  of  God's  awful  greatness"? 
Where  is  there,  in  the  account,  the  faintest  shadow  of  an 
indication,  "  Jesus  was  to  Ananias  his  God,  the  Recipient  of 
his  worship  "  ?  The  narrative  tells  of  neither  prayer,  nor  wor 
ship,  but  of  an  exceptional  state,  and  of  some  abnormal  com 
munication  with  the  inner  senses  through  a  dream  or  trance. 
The  complete  occupation  of  the  field  of  spiritual  vision,  in 
the  colloquy  with  the  glorified  Jesus,  is,  perhaps,  better  evi 
dence  that  the  field  was  finite,  or  the  soul's  faculties  awakened 
only  so  far  as  to  attend  to  the  Object  presented,  than  that 
the  Object  was  Infinite,  sufficing  to  engage  and  satisfy  all 
capacities  for  devotion. 

The  "  conspicuousness "  of  St.  Paul's  "  devotion  to  the 
Adorable  Person  of  our  Lord"  furnishes  Mr.  Liddon  with 
materials  for  a  number  of  rhetorical,  indiscriminating,  and 
exaggerating  statements :  — 

"  At  the  very  moment  of  his  conversion,  Saul  of  Tarsus 
surrendered  himself  by  a  prayer  to  Christ,  as  to  the  lawful 
Lord  of  his  being :  '  Lord,'  he  cried,  '  what  wilt  Thou  have 
me  to  do? '  (Acts  ix.  6.)  And  when  afterwards,  in  the  tem 
ple,  our  Lord  bade  St.  Paul,  '  Make  haste  and  get  thee  quickly 
out  of  Jerusalem,'  we  find  the  Apostle,  like  Ananias,  unfold 
ing  to  Jesus  his  secret  thoughts,  his  fears,  his  regrets,  his 
confessions  ;  laying  them  out  before  Him,  and  waiting  for  an 
answer  from  Jesus  in  the  secret  chambers  of  his  soul  (Acts 
xxii.  19,20)"  (p.  371). 


340  PAUL'S  SUPPOSED  HABITUAL 

There  is  something  stronger  than  a  probability  the  words 
by  which  Saul  of  Tarsus  is  supposed  to  have  "  surrendered 
himself,"  &c.,  were  never  spoken.  They  are  in  the  Vulgate 
Version,  but  are  wanting  not  only  in  the  three  most  ancient 
MSS.,  the  Sinaitic,  the  Vatican,  and  the  Alexandrine,  but 
in  the  Greek  MSS.  generally.  Dean  Alford  says  of  them: 
"  They  are  without  any  authority  whatever  from  the  Greek 
MSS."  They  may  have  been  based  upon  Acts  xxii.  10,  xxvi. 
14  ;  passages  which  for  Mr.  Liddon's  purpose  are  not  parallel. 
But,  assuming  for  the  moment,  Paul  did,  trembling  and  aston 
ished,  cry,  "  Lord,  what  wilt  Thou  have  me  to  do  ?  "  are  we 
to  assume  also  that  by  Lord  he  meant  I^ord  God,  or  that 
if  he  had  not  believed  Christ  to  be  God  he  must  have  said, 
"Lord,  wilt  Thou  tell  me  what  God  would  have  me  to  do?" 

The  expostulation  during  the  trance  or  ecstasy  in  the  temple 
(Acts  xxii.  17-21)  does  not,  either  in  form  or  matter,  excuse 
Mr.  Liddon's  inflated  commentary ;  and,  if  we  exactingly 
draw  inferences,  the  unawed  and  outspoken  unfolding  of  the 
entranced  Christian's  thoughts  suggests  that  his  soul  was 
not  conscious  of  beholding,  and  conversing  with,  the  Ever 
lasting  God.  The  purpose  of  his  pleading,  after  Jesus  had 
told  him  the  Jews  at  Jerusalem  would  not  receive  his  testi 
mony,  was  to  show  there  were  strong  reasons  why  they 
ought,  and  in  his  opinion  were  likely,  to  receive  it.  Is  this 
remonstrance,  and  preference  for  one's  own  judgment,  at  all 
natural,  when  the  soul's  inward  senses  are  opened  to  direct 
and  conscious  intercourse  with  the  Almighty  ? 

But  Mr.  Liddon  has  brought  to  the  study  of  Scripture  a 
penetrating  discernment  conducting  him  to  the  persuasion 
thus  expressed,  — 

"  St.  Paul  constantly  uses  language  which  shows  that  he 
habitually  thought  of  Jesus  as  of  Divine  Providence  in  a 
Human  Form,  watching  over,  befriending,  consoling,  guiding, 
providing  for  him  and  his,  with  Infinite  foresight  and  power, 
but  also  with  the  tenderness  of  a  human  sympathy.  In  this 
sense,  Jesus  is  placed  on  a  level  with  the  Father  in  St.  Paul's 
two  earliest  Epistles.  c  Now  God  Himself  and  our  Father, 


CONCEPTION    OF   CHRIST.  341 

and  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  direct  our  way  unto  you '  (1  Thess. 
iii.  11).  'Now  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  Himself,  and  God,  even 
our  Father,  Which  hath  loved  us,  and  hath  given  us  ever 
lasting  consolation  and  good  hope  through  grace,  comfort 
your  hearts,  and  stablish  you  in  every  good  word  and  work ' 
(•2  Thess.  ii.  16,  17).  Thus  Jesus  is  associated  with  the 
Father,  in  one  instance,  as  directing  the  outward  movements 
of  the  Apostle's  life,  in  another  as  building  up  the  inward  life 
of  the  recent  converts  to  Christianity.  In  other  devotional 
expressions,  the  Name  of  Jesus  stands  alone.  (  I  trust  in  the 
Lord  Jesus,'  so  the  Apostle  writes  to  the  Philippians,  '  to  send 
Timotheus  shortly  unto  you'  (Phil.  ii.  19).  'I  thank  Christ 
Jesus  our  Lord,'  so  he  assures  St.  Timothy, '  Who  hath  given 
me  power,  for  that  He  counted  me  faithful,  putting  me  into 
the  ministry'  (1  Tim.  i.  12).  Is  not  this  the  natural  language 
of  a  soul  which  is  constantly  engaged  in  communion  with 
Jesus,  whether  it  be  the  communion  of  praise  or  the  com 
munion  of  prayer?  Jesus  is  to  St.  Paul  not  a  deceased 
teacher  or  philanthropist,  who  has  simply  done  his  great 
work  and  then  left  it  as  a  legacy  to  the  world ;  He  is  God, 
ever  living  and  ever  present,  the  Giver  of  temporal  and  of 
spiritual  blessings,  the  Guide  and  Friend  of  man,  both  in 
man's  outward  and  in  his  inward  life"  (pp.  371,  372). 

Whether  the  tone  and  diction  of  the  Epistles  to  the  Thessa- 
lonians  are  in  any  degree  calculated  to  suggest  or  encourage 
the  fancy  of  St.  Paul's  having,  in  one  or  two  expressions, 
which  may  by  total  isolation  become  ambiguous,  purposed 
to  place  Jesus  on  a  level  with  the  Father,  can  readily  be 
determined  by  readers  of  those  Epistles.  The  personal  dis 
tinction  between  God  and  Christ  is  everywhere  clearly  and 
prominently  presented,  and  God  is  the  Christian's  God  and 
Father,  the  Source  of  the  Christian's  election,  the  Object  of 
the  Christian's  prayers  and  thanksgivings.  The  conversion 
of  the  heathen  to  Apostolic  Christianity  was  a  turning  from 
idols  "  to  serve  the  Living  and  True  God,  and  to  wait  for  His 
Son  from  the  heavens,  even  Jesus  whom  He  raised  from  the 
dead"  (1  Thess.  i.  9,  10). 


342  HOW  IS   PRAYER  TO   CHRIST 

The  first  of  the  passages  which  Mr.  Liddon  cites,  and  in 
which  the  Apostle  sets  forth  the  earnest  and  pious  desire  of 
his  heart,  is  prefaced  by  a  reference  to  his  thanksgiving  and 
fervent  prayer  to  God,  and  followed  by  the  expression  of  a 
hope  that  the  Thessalonians'  hearts  may  be  established  un 
blamable  in  holiness,  before  our  God  and  Father,  at  the  com 
ing  of  our  Lord  Jesus  with  all  his  saints.  There  can,  I 
should  imagine,  be  no  doubt,  even  in  the  most  ecclesiastically 
tutored  mind,  that  our  God  (ver.  9)  is  synonymous  with  our 
God  and  Father  (ver.  11  and  13),  and  therefore  does  not 
include  the  personally  separate  Son,  our  Lord  Jesus. 

The  text  quoted  from  the  Second  Epistle  to  the  Thessa 
lonians  stands  in  a  passage  where  the  Apostle  declares  his 
obligation  to  give  thanks  to  God  always,  for  His  election  of 
the  Thessalonians,  and  His  calling  of  them  by  the  Gospel,  to 
the  obtaining  of  the  glory  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

If  St.  Paul  had  conceived  Jesus  Christ  to  be  on  a  level 
with  the  Father,  and  included  with  Him  in  one  and  the  same 
Divine  Nature,  it  seems  impossible  he  should  have  so  habitu 
ally  and  sharply  discriminated  Them  from  each  other.  There 
is  no  evidence  St.  Paul  was  a  man  of  slovenly,  unsystematic 
mind,  or  was  afraid  to  face  and  proclaim  the  results  and  con 
clusions  which  his  faith  involved.  If  he  was  really  enlightened 
to  believe  and  know  that  Jesus  is,  in  virtue  of  Very  Godhead, 
the  Father's  Equal,  his  language  in  every  Epistle  singly,  and 
in  all  taken  together,  cannot  be  rationally  explained  when 
severed  from  the  hypothesis  of  his  being  the  Mouthpiece  of 
an  inspiration  whose  fruits  are  to  be  judged  by  no  received 
rules  of  human  intelligence. 

The  argument  —  the  Name  of  Christ  is  mentioned  con 
jointly  with  the  Name  of  the  Father,  in  references  to  the 
bestowal  of  spiritual  guidance  and  strength  and  comfort  — 
has  no  cogency,  unless  proof  is  forthcoming  that  Jesus  and 
the  Father  are,  in  the  same  sense,  kind,  and  degree,  the 
sources  of  spiritual  guidance  and  strength  and  comfort. 
The  truer  and  solely  Scriptural  point  of  view  is,  that  God 
imparts  blessings  by  and  through  Christ.  That  the  exalted 


RECOGNIZED    IN    PAUL'S   EPISTLES?  343 

Jesus,  as  the  Messiah,  the  Head  of  the  Church,  and  the  Re 
cipient  of  vast  and  peculiar  gifts  from  the  Almighty  Father, 
is  the  Channel  of  grace,  and  the  secondary  and  subordinate 
Dispenser  of  blessings,  was  unquestionably  a  portion  of  the 
Apostolic  Faith,  and  amply  accounts  for  sundry  forms  of 
expression  which  the  Bampton  Lectures  misinterpret ;  while 
it  does  not  contravene  the  mass  of  direct  statements  and 
clear  implications  which  attest  Christ's  inferiority  and  exte 
riority  to  the  Unoriginated,  Incorruptible  Essence.  The 
Apostle,  who  could  cheer  and  exhort  his  converts  with  the 
assurance,  ye  are  Christ's  /  the  Head  of  every  man  is  Christ, 
would,  doubtless,  believe  in  Christ's  loving  care  and  ability  to 
afford  gracious  assistances;  but  in  the  expressions  which  his 
belief  instigated  he  would  not  intend  to  bring  the  one  Lord 
to  the  level  of  the  One  God,  and  would  not  forget  that  Christ 
is  God's;  that  God  is  the  Head  of  Christ  (I  Cor.  iii.  23; 
xi.  3)  /  and  that  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  Father  of  mercies  and  God  of  all  comfort 
(2  Cor.  i.  3). 

The  Apostle's  benedictory  salutations,  &c.,  "  Grace  be  unto 
you,  and  peace,  from  God  our  Father,  and  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  "  (1  Cor.  i.  3),  "  The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  be 
with  you  all"  ('Rom.  xvi.  24),  and  the  like,  are  not  "indirect 
prayers  offered  to  Christ,  that  His  blessing  might  be  vouch 
safed  to  the  Churches  which  the  Apostle  is  addressing,"  unless 
prayer  is  the  same  thing  as  kind  commendations,  benevolent 
wishes,  and  pious  aspirations.  A  believer  in  angelic  minis 
trations  and  guardianship  would  not  indirectly  pray  to  angels, 
if  he  said,  "May  angelic  care  be  with  you,  may  the  holy 
Angels  guard  you."  Since  all  things  and  events  are  within 
the  scope,  and  subject  to  the  sway  of  the  Divine  wisdom  and 
power,  every  expression  of  hope  and  desire  with  respect  to 
the  bestowal  of  good  gifts  might  be  called  an  "indirect 
prayer"  to  God,  but  could  not  be  called  prayer  in  the  strict 
and  proper  sense.  If  the  gifts  were  contemplated  as  flow 
ing  from,  or  through,  a  secondary  and  intermediate  Giver,  it 
would  be  simply  absurd  to  say  that  kindly  expressed  hopes, 


344  HOW   IS   PRAYER   TO    CHRIST 

wishes,  and  commendations  were  prayers  to  him,  proving  him 
to  be  the  Object  of  truly  religious  supplication. 

Before  adducing  the  texts  quoted  in  the  last  paragraph, 
Mr.  Liddon  should  have  studied  the  contexts.  The  very 
next  words  after  the  text  from  the  first  Corinthian  Evcstle 
are,  "  I  thank  my  God  always  concerning  you,  for  the  gra'ce 
of  God  which  was  given  you  in  Christ  Jesus ; "  and  the  next 
sentence  (ver.  9)  is,  "  God  is  faithful,  by  Whom  ye  were 
called  into  the  fellowship  of  His  Son,  Jesus  Christ  our 
Lord." 

The  text  from  the  Roman  Epistle  should  have  been  referred, 
xvi.  20  ;  verse  24  not  being  found  in  either  of  the  three  great 
Manuscripts.  Verse  20  is  immediately  preceded  by  an  an 
nouncement  :  "  The  God  of  peace  will  bruise  Satan  under 
your  feet  shortly; "and  followed  (ver.  25-27)  by  a  doxology 
of  rather  involved  and  incoherent  construction  (see  Winer, 
Grammar  of  N.  T.  Sec.  Ixiii.  1) :  "To  him  that  is  able  to 
stablish  you  according  to  my  Gospel,  and  the  preaching  of 
Jesus  Christ,  ...  to  the  Only  wise  God,  to  Whom,  through 
Jesus  Christ,  be  the  glory  for  ever." 

A  theologian  must  be  suffering  grievously  from  scarcity 
of  materials,  when  he  endeavors  to  build  reasoning  on  such 
phrases  as,  in  the  Lord  Jesus ;  in  the  Lord ;  in  Christ.  If 
my  readers  will  consult  a  few  of  the  many  examples  in  which 
those  phrases  occur,  they  will  see  how  much  out  of  place  are 
minute  doctrinal  deductions.  Mr.  Liddon  borrows  the  follow 
ing  commentary  on  Phil.  ii.  19,  from  Bishop  Ellicott :  "I 
hope  in  the  Lord  Jesus  to  send  Timothy  shortly.  This  hope 
was  in  the  Lord  Jesus  /  it  rested  and  centred  in  Him ;  it 
arose  from  no  extraneous  feelings  or  expectations,  and  so 
would  doubtless  be  fulfilled." 

St.  Paul's  avowal  of  gratitude  to  Christ  (1  Tim.  i.  12)  is 
no  "  devotional  expression  "  of  religious  adoration,  implying 
Jesus  to  be  God,  and  equally  with  the  Father  the  primary 
Fountain  of  spiritual  endowments  and  energy.  It  is  a  Simple 
expression  of  thankfulness  for  his  call  to  the  Apostleship,  and 
for  the  strength  which  had,  through  Christ,  been  imparted  to 


RECOGNIZED   IN   PAUL'S   EPISTLES?  345 

him.  The  original  of  I  thank  is  not  the  verb  ev'/jwiGreTv, 
which  is  in  the  New  Testament  almost  exclusively  appropri 
ated  to  the  sacred  purpose  of  thanking  God,  —  (Luke  xvii.  16 ; 
Rom.  xvi.  4 ;  being  the  only  exceptions  in  between  thirty  arid 
forty  texts),  —  but  a  phrase  which  is  not  frequent,  and  is  not 
in  itself  devotional  (Luke  xvii.  9),  though  it  is  used  with  ref 
erence  to  God  in  2  Tim.  i.  3.  If  devout  thanksgivings  were 
continually  ascending  to  the  Glorified  Jesus,  how  is  it  that 
Mr.  Liddon  can  adduce  only  a  single  imperfect  instance,  from 
the  whole  range  of  the  Acts  and  Epistles?  And,  again, 
how  is  it  that,  in  the  same  wide  field,  the  consecrated  term, 
tv%uQiGTtiv,  is  never  applied  to  Christ  ?  And,  yet  again,  how 
is  it  that  the  Pauline  phrase,  thanks  be  to  God,  —  y/wt^  raj 
QSCO  (Rom.  vi.  17  ;  vii.  25,  probably ;  1  Cor.  xv.  57  ;  2  Cor.  ii. 
14;  viii.  16  ;  ix.  15),  —  has  nowhere  one  parallel  thanks  be  to 
Christ  ?  Have  these  facts  no  weight,  and  are  honest  men, 
who  profess  to  learn  from  the  New  Testament,  at  liberty  to 
ignore  them? 

Mr.  Liddon  might,  moreover,  have  gathered  the  precarious- 
ness  of  the  conjecture,  Christ  was  "  to  St.  Paul,  God  ever  liv 
ing,"  &c.,  from  the  context  of  1  Tim.  i.  12.  Inverse  11,  the 
Apostle  names  "  the  Gospel  of  the  glory  of  the  Blessed  God," 
where  the  Blessed  God  is  not  Jesus  Christ;  and  in  verse  17 
he  writes  :  "  Unto  the  King  of  the  Ages,  the  Immortal,  the 
Invisible,  the  Only  God,  be  honor  and  glory  for  ever  and 
ever;"  where,  again,  the  Only  God  is  not  Jesus  Christ. 

What  is  meant  by  coupling  with  Christ's  "  Infinite  fore 
sight  and  power  the  tenderness  also  of  a  human  sympathy"? 
The  Incarnation  of  Deity  can  scarcely  be  imagined  to  have 
augmented  God's  tender  love,  and  capacity  of  feeling  with, 
and  for,  His  creatures.  Our  Maker  does  not  acquire  a  better 
knowledge  whereof  we"  are  made,  and  come  to  understand 
more" thoroughly  the  work  of  His  own  Hands,  by  enveloping 
One  of  His  Own  Divine  Persons  in  the  raiment  of  an  Imper 
sonal  Humanity.  Is  not  God's  Nature,  inasmuch  as  It  is 
the  fountain  and  sustenance  of  ours,  the  One  conceivable 
Nature  Which  can  perfectly  sympathize  with  our  infirmities, 


346  HOW   IS   PRAYER   TO    CHRIST 

and  can  learn  nothing  about  us  by  the  assumption  of  our 
flesh  and  blood  ?  A  created  Being,  not  one  of  ourselves,  or 
even  an  Arian  Christ,  such  as  the  Fourth  Gospel,  when  not 
ecclesiastically  expounded,  so  distinctly  yields,  might  attain 
complete  sympathy  with  us  by  entering  our  ranks ;  but  In 
carnation  could  not  add  to  our  Creator's  Omniscience,  or 
extend  His  loving  tenderness.  The  Personal  and  absolutely 
Divine  Word  cannot  have  furnished  Himself  with  one  ad 
ditional  or  enlarged  sympathetic  qualification  by  becoming 
Incarnate.  If  the  undiminished  Attributes  of  Deity  did  not 
deprive  His  experience  of  veritable  human  reality,  still  His 
experience  could  not  have  enhanced  His  perfect  comprehen 
sion  of  His  rational  and  sensitive  creatures. 

Rom.  x.  9-13  is  a  passage  which  we  are  asked  to  accept  as 
proof  of  St.  Paul's  having  believed  Christ  to  be  God,  and 
consequently  the  Object  of  prayer:  — 

"  In  point  of  fact,  the  Apostle  has  not  left  us  in  doubt  as 
to  his  faith  or  his  practice  in  this  respect.  '  If,'  he  asserts, 
'  thou  shalt  confess  with  thy  mouth  the  Lord  Jesus,  and 
shalt  believe  in  thine  heart  that  God  hath  raised  Him  from 
the  dead,  thou  shalt  be  saved.  For  with  the  heart  man 
believeth  unto  righteousness,  and  with  the  mouth  confession 
is  made  to  salvation.  For  the  Scripture  saith,  Whosoever 
believeth  on  Him  shall  not  be  ashamed.  For  there  is  no 
difference  between  the  Jew  and  the  Greek ;  for  the  Same  is 
Lord  over  all,  rich  unto  all  that  call  upon  Him.  For  whoso 
ever  shall  call  upon  the  Name  of  the  Lord  shall  be  saved.' 
The  Prophet  Joel  had  used  these  last  words  of  prayer  to  the 
Lord  Jehovah.  St.  Paul,  as  the  whole  context  shows  be 
yond  reasonable  doubt,  understands  them  of  prayer  to 
Jesus"  (p.  372). 

I  have  already  shown  that  the  context  does  any  thing 
rather  than  remove  "  reasonable  doubt "  St.  Paul  understood 
the  prophet's  words  in  the  sense  Mr.  Liddon  asserts ;  but  I 
may  add  a  few  remarks  here.  The  alteration  in  the  transla 
tion,  "  the  Same  is  Lord  of  all,"  is  probably  not  an  improve 
ment.  At  any  rate,  it  is  a  matter  of  opinion,  arbitrary,  on  no 


RECOGNIZED   IN   PAUL'S   EPISTLES?  347 

ground  provable,  and  of  no  consequence  in  the  interpretation 
of  the  passage,  "God  Who  raised  Christ  from  the  dead" 
(ver.  9),  being  the  more  probable  Object  of  the  faith  and  the 
invocation  in  verses  11  and  12.  In  Acts  ii.  21,  we  meet  with 
the  same  quotation  from  Joel,  where,  if  the  original  sense  of 
the  prophet's  words  is  departed  from,  and  the  Lord  designates 
Christ,  and  Christ  is  God,  ecclesiastical  exposition  becomes 
eminently  requisite  in  the  next  sentence,  "Jesus  of  Naza 
reth,  a  man  proved  by  God  unto  you  by  miracles,  and  won 
ders,  and  signs,  which  God  did  by  Him ; "  and  again  in  ver. 
36,  "  God  hath  made  this  same  Jesus  whom  ye  crucified  both 
Lord  and  Christ."  If  it  should  be  said,  as  the  present  Bishop 
of  Lincoln,  Dr.  Wordsworth,  does  say  (Smith's  J3ible  Dic 
tionary,  Article,  Son  of  God),  "  Lord  equals  Jehovah"  then 
we  have  the  portentous  disclosure  that  the  Self-existent, 
Eternal  One  has  made  a  Being  Who  expired  upon  the  cross, 
Self-existent  and  Eternal.  To  soften  this  startling  revelation, 
by  explaining  the  making  of  Jesus  into  Jehovah,  to  signify 
merely  the  giving  Him  the  Name  Jehovah,  is  to  abandon  its 
witness  to  Christ's  Deity ;  for  to  bear  the  Name  is  not  the 
same  thing  as  to  possess  the  -Nature  of  Jehovah. 

If  calling  upon  the  Name  of  the  Lord  is  understood  of 
Jesus,  in  Rom.  x.  13,  then  that  form  of  expression,  which  has 
been  shown  not  necessarily  and  specifically  to  indicate 
prayer,  may  be  synonymous  with  confessing  with  the  mouth 
the  Lord  Jesus  (ver.  9).  The  probably  true  reading  in  verse 
17  is  the  report  is  through  the  word  of  Christ;  but  before 
we  draw  upon  this  circumstance  for  inferences  favorable  to 
Mr.  Liddon's  exposition,  we  should  study,  in  the  certainly 
true  reading  of  Col.iii.  16, 17,  a  description  of  the  devotional 
effects  which  the  word  of  Christ  ought  to  produce.  "  Let 
the  word  of  Christ  dwell  in  you  richly ;  in  all  wisdom  teach 
ing  and  admonishing  each  other  with  psalms,  hymns,  spiritual 
songs,  in  grace  singing  in  your  hearts  to  God.  And  every 
thing  whatsoever  ye  do  in  word  or  in  deed,  do  all  in  the 
Name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  giving  thanks  to  God,  the  Father, 
through  Him."  The  denomination,  Lord  of  all,  being  used 


348  HOW   IS   PRAYER   TO    CHRIST 

in  Gal.  iv.  1,  can  hardly  be  reckoned  among  the  consecrated 
and  exclusive  titles  of  God. 

In  the  particular  case  we  are  discussing,  there  is  no  proof, 
aiid  no  preponderance  of  likelihood,  "  St.  Paul  applies  to 
Jesus  the  language  which  the  prophets  had  used  of  the  Lord 
Jehovah;"  and  if  he  had  so  applied  it,  no  convincing  testi 
mony  for  the  Apostle's  belief  in  Christ's  Godhead  would  be 
involved.  The  great  characteristic  of  Christ's  disciples  in 
the  Apostolic  Church  was,  that  they  did  in  every  way  sup 
plicate,  acknowledge,  and  praise  their  God  and  Father.  To 
believe  in,  confess,  and  call  upon  the  Name  of  Jesus  Christ 
Whom  God  had  sent,  was  included  in  the  Christian  worship 
of  God,  not  because  Christ  was  held  to  be  God,  but  because 
the  very  position  and  offices  of  Christ  were  understood  to  be 
those  of  Example,  Leader,  Lord,  and  Head,  in  the  family  of 
God's  worshippers.  From  the  Apostolic  standpoint,  the  dis 
ciples  of  Jesus  were,  in  virtue  of  their  discipleship,  most 
emphatically  and  distinctively  the  servants  and  children  of 
God.  I  speak,  of  course,  only  upon  the  basis  of  a  reasonable 
interpretation  of  Scripture,  and  under  correction  from  eccle 
siastical  light.  Ecclesiastical  interpretation  may  teach,  and, 
upon  Catholic  as  opposed  to  Protestant  principles,  may  teach 
rightly,  there  is  a  divinely  devised  and  irrefragable  argument 
for  Christ's  Deity  contained  in  the  fact,  that  a  prophet  used 
certain  language  concerning  Jehovah  ;  that  St.  Peter  (Acts 
ii.  21)  quoted  the  prophet's  language,  to  all  appearance  in  its 
original  application ;  and  that  St.  Paul  afterwards  quoted  it, 
in  a  passage  sufficiently  obscure  and  ambiguous  to  leave  room 
for  doubt  whether  his  designed  reference  was  to  Jehovah  or 
to  Christ. 

Mr.  Liddon  inquires :  "  What  shall  we  say  of  St.  Paul's 
entreaties  that  he  might  be  freed  from  the  mysterious  and 
numiliating  infirmity  which  he  terms  his  'thorn  in  the  flesh'? 
He  tells  us  that  three  times  he  besought  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  that  it  might  depart  from  him,  and  that  in  mercy  his 
prayer  was  refused  (2  Cor.  xii.  8,  9).  Are  we  to  imagine 
that  that  prayer  to  Jesus  was  an  isolated  act  in  St.  Paul's 


KECOGNIZED    IN   PAUL'S   EPISTLES?  349 

spiritual  life?  Does  any  such  religious  act  stand  alone  in 
the  spiritual  history  of  an  earnest  #nd  moderately  consistent 
man?"  (p.  373.) 

From  the  particular  term,  TtaQaxafaiv,  by  which  St.  Paul 
describes  his  petition,  no  argument  can  be  dra»vn  for  the 
petition's  having  been  prayer  to  God.  That  term  is  never 
by  the  Apostle  used  of  requests  to  the  Almighty,  but  it 
repeatedly  occurs  of  entreaties  and  exhortations  addressed  to 
the  brethren.  In  the  Gospels  it  frequently  describes  peti 
tions  made  to  Christ  while  He  was  upon  earth ;  but  it  is,  in 
the  entire  New  Testament,  only  once  used  of  prayer  to  God, 
in  the  words,  "  Thinkest  thou  that  I  cannot  now  pray  to  my 
Father,  and  He  will  furnish  Me  with  more  than  twelve 
legions  of  Angels  ?  "  (Matt.  xxvi.  53.) 

Dean  Stanley,  on  2  Cor.  xii.  8,  says  of  the  verb  of  entreaty 
used  by  St.  Paul :  "  This  is  often  applied  to  Christ  in  the 
Gospels,  and  implies  that  personal  communication  which  the 
Apostle  always  presupposes  in  his  language  concerning 
Him." 

But  the  petition  cannot  be  fairly  disjoined  from  the  excep 
tional  circumstances,  the  "visions  and  revelations  of  the 
Lord,"  with  which  it  is,  in  the  Apostle's  narrative,  associated. 
From  verse  9,  we  learn  there  was  some  sort  of  sensible, 
unusual  communication.  The  answer  given  to  St.  Paul  was, 
in  its  degree,  a  revelation,  and  the  account  leads  us  to  sup 
pose  Christ  appeared  and  spoke.  So  far  as  our  knowledge 
of  the  Apostle's  spiritual  history  extends,  we  have  no  warrant 
for  "imagining  that  that  prayer  to  Jesus"  was  other  than  an 
"  isolated  act,"  or,  at  any  rate,  an  act  attached  to  conditions 
foreign  to  ordinary  experience,  and  therefore  no  guide  to  us, 
unless  in  our  cases  the  conditions  should  be  repeated.  I  do 
not  doubt  that  all  persons  who  believe  in  Christ's  exaltation, 
and  His  mission  from  God,  would,  if  they  were  to  behold  and 
hear  Him,  either  in  their  normal  or  in  an  entranced  state, 
address  petitions  to  Him.  They  would  do  so,  whether  they 
held  or  repudiated  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  Catholic 
respecting  His  Person.  Exceptional  experiences,  such  as 


350  HOW   IS   PRAYEE   TO    CHRIST 

those  of  Stephen,  Ananias,  and  St.  Paul,  natu "ally  produced 
exceptional  results.  These  saints  of  the  primitive  Church 
did  not  appeal  to  Christ  as  to  the  Invisible  and  Omnipresent 
God,  but  as  to  a  Being  marvellously  disclosed  to,  and  com 
municating  with,  the  inner  senses  of  their  souls.  The  visions 
and  colloquies  vouchsafed  to  St.  Paul  (see  Acts  ix.  27  ;  xviii. 
9 ;  xxii.  18 ;  xxiii.  11  ;  2  Cor.  xii.  1-9)  would  have  had  a 
practically  incontrollable  tendency  to  make  prayer  to  Jesus 
the  Apostle's  habitual  practice,  if  he  had  held  Jesus  to  be 
Omnipotent  and  Omniscienlt  Deity.  He  would  himself  con 
tinually  have  prayed  to  Christ,  and  would  have  enjoined 
prayer  to  Christ  as  among  the  foremost  and  most  profitable 
of  Christian  duties.  But  if  we  know  any  thing  about  his  life, 
teaching,  and  devotional  habits  (and  the  reasonable  supposi 
tion  is,  the  Acts  and  Epistles  tell  us  the  prominent  features), 
he  did  nothing  of  the  kind.  We  may,  therefore,  fairly  infer 
his  views  of  his  exalted  Master's  Nature  caused  him  (times 
of  ecstasy  and  revelation  apart)  to  abstain  from  offering 
prayers  to  our  Lord,  and  to  abstain  from  encouraging  or 
directing  others  to  offer  them.  "  An  earnest  and  moderately 
consistent  man,"  convinced  of  Christ's  Godhead,  and  enjoying 
the  intercourse  with  Christ  with  which  St.  Paul  was  favored, 
must  have  shown  his  earnestness  and  consistency  by  prac 
tices  and  injunctions  which  the  known  history  and  extant 
writings  of  St.  Paul  totally  foil  to  exhibit.  The  attempt  to 
deduce  Christ's  Godhead  from  St.  Paul's  "  worship  "  of  Christ 
is  an  impolitic  blunder,  because  it  at  once,  and  necessarily, 
fixes  the  attention  on  facts  most  adverse  to  the  deduction. 
The  Apostle  had  special  individual  inducements  to  render, 
and  prescribe,  the  adoration  which,  in  Mr.  Liddon's  opinion, 
he  would  on  general  grounds  of  doctrine  feel  to  be  due.  But 
while  there  is  superabundant  testimony  he  himself  adored, 
and  taught  others  to  adore,  the  Unseen  Father,  with  the 
tributes  of  prayer  and  praise,  there  is  no  testimony  he 
adored,  or  counselled  the  adoration  of,  the  Unseen  Christ. 

Mr.  Liddon  reverts  again  to  a  portion  of  the  much-dis 
cussed  passage  in  the  second  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the 


351 

Philippians,  for  the  purpose  of  asserting  that,  in  verses  9 
and  10,  "Apostles  declared  Jesus,  when  His  day  of  humilia 
tion  and  suffering  had  ended,  to  have  been  so  highly  exalted 
that  the  Name  which  He  had  borne  on  earth,  and  which  is 
the  symbol  of  His  Humanity,  was  now  the  very  atmosphere 
and  nutriment  of  all  the  upward  torrents  of  prayer  which 
rise  from  the  moral  world  beneath  His  throne  ;  that  as  the 
God-Man  He  was  worshipped  by  Angels,  by  men,  and  by  the 
spirits  of  the  dead.  The  practice  of  the  Apostles  did  but 
illustrate  their  faith ;  and  the  prayers  offered  to  Jesus  by 
His  servants  on  earth  were  believed  to  be  but  a  reflection 
of  that  worship  which  is  offered  to  Him  by  the  Church  of 
heaven"  (p.  374). 

That  the  Name  bestowed  upon  Christ  was  "  the  Name  He 
had  borne  on  earth "  is  not  less  manifest  than  many  other 
things  which  are  stated  in  the  Lectures  I  am  reviewing,  but 
at  the  same  time  is  very  far  from  being  really  manifest.  The 
wording  of  the  text  certainly  leaves  the  impression  that  the 
giving  of  "  the  Name  which  is  above  every  name  "  was  con 
current  with  the  exceeding  exaltation  Christ  Jesus  received 
from  God,  and  therefore  posterior  to  the  "  day  of  humiliation 
and  suffering."  Mr.  Liddon  strengthens  himself  by  quoting 
Dean  Alford  :  — 

"  The  general  aim  of  the  passage  is  the  exaltation  of  Jesus. 
The  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father,  below,  is  no  deduction 
from  this,  but  rather  an  additional  reason  why  we  should 
carry  on  the  exaltation  of  Jesus  until  this  new  particular  is 
introduced.  This  would  lead  us  to  infer  that  the  universal 
prayer  is  to  be  to  Jesus.  And  this  view  is  confirmed  by  the 
next  clause,  where  every  tongue  is  to  confess  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  Lord,  when  we  remember  the  common  expression, 
to  call  upon  the  Name  of  the  Lord,  for  prayer  "  (Rom.  x. 
12;  1  Cor.  i.  2;  2  Tim.  ii.  22). 

The  worth  of  the  references,  in  connection  with  the  state 
ment,  "  to  call  upon  the  Name  of  the  Lord  is  a  common  New 
Testament  expression  for  prayer,"  my  readers  are  in  a  posi 
tion  to  estimate.  No  man  could  write  with  more  clearness 


352 

than  Dean  Alford,  when  he  was  not  engaged  upon  the  task 
of  elucidating  Catholic  dogma  by  the  exposition  of  intrac 
table  texts  ;  but  I  am  greatly  mistaken,  if  he  wras  thinking  or 
writing  clearly,  wrhen  he  affirmed  that  the  words  to  the  glory 
of  God,  the  Father  (ver.  11),  are  no  deduction  from  the 
exaltation  of  Jesus.  Take  the  bending  of  the  knee  in  the 
Name  of  Jesus,  and  the  confession  of  the  Lordship  of  Jesus, 
in  what  sense  we  will,  the  glory  of  God  the  Father  is  the 
supreme  and  ultimate  aim  and  end ;  and,  if  this  does  not 
deduct  from  the  exaltation  of  Jesus,  it  at  least  implies  that 
the  exaltation  did  not,  in  the  Apostle's  thought,  reach  the 
height  of  Co-equal  Godhead.  If,  in  the  Sacred  Writer's 
estimation,  Jesus  and  God  were  distinct  Beings,  so  decidedly 
on  different  levels  that  the  one  could  be  "  exceedingly  ex 
alted  "  by  the  Other,  there  is,  of  course,  no  deduction  from 
the  exaltation,  but  rather  a  guarantee  and  continuation  of 
it,  in  the  "  new  particular  introduced ; "  but  if  the  writer 
judged  Jesus  to  be  in  Nature  the  Eternal  Father's  Equal, 
his  language  is  among  those  products  of  revealing  inspiration 
which  are  wholly  inscrutable  to  reason. 

I  may  remark,  the  Dean's  Revised  Version  of  Phil.  ii.  6,  — • 
"  deemed  not  His  equality  with  God  a  thing  to  grasp  at," — 
will  not  pass  with  unprejudiced  scholars,  however  it  may 
deceive  the  body  of  English  readers,  whom  the  Dean  was 
bound  with  scrupulous  fairness  to  enlighten.  Equality  with 
is  a  translation  too  doubtful  ever  to  be  given  without  an  inti 
mation  of  its  doubtfulness ;  and  for  the  intrusion  of  the 
pronoun  His,  there  was  no  authority  but  the  Dean's  own 
conviction,  which  he  might  have  stated  and  defended,  but 
had  no  right  to  foist  upon  the  public,  under  the  guise  of 
literal  rendering.*  An  expositor's  opinion  of  the  Apostle's 

*  While  referring  to  Dean  Alford's  Revision,  which  is  in  so  many 
points  a  real  improvement,  I  may  notice  two  glaring  faults.  He  retains 
in  St.  Matthew's  Gospel  the  inaccurate  and  misleading  phrase,  "  end  of 
the  world  ;  "  and  in  Rom.  ix.  5  gives  no  hint  that  the  rendering,  "  Christ, 
Who  is  God  over  all,  blessed  for  ever,"  is  only  one  of  two  translations 
equally  admissible  on  grammatical  grounds.  The  preponderance  of  evi 
dence,  on  all  other  grounds  (excepting,  of  course,  the  Church's  final  dog- 


DISCREDITABLY   HANDLED    BY   COMMENTATORS.         353 

meaning  may  be  very  valuable  in  its  proper  place,  but  that 
place  is  not  a  translation  supposed  to  be  as  closely  literal  as 
the  different  idioms  of  different  languages  will  permit.  Or 
thodox  Protestant  scholars  have  an  instinctive  and  almost 
insuperable  reluctance  to  acquaint  English  reader,,  with  the 
ambiguities  involved  in  the  construction  and  language  of 
Rom.  ix.  5,  Phil.  ii.  5-11.  But,  however  natural  this  reluc 
tance  may  be,  the  translator's  duty  should  be  performed  with 
conscientious  equity  ;  and  in  the  few  instances  of  phrases  with 
a  controversial  bearing,  where  two  renderings  are,  on  merely 
philological  grounds,  equally  probable,  both  should  be  given. 
Fear  lest  the  majority  of  readers  should,  when  thrown  on  the 
contexts,  and  on  the  general  teaching  of  Scripture,  arrive 
at  what  the  translator  judges  to  be  a  wrong  conclusion,  is  no 
sufficient  palliation  for  making  a  Sacred  Writer  definitely 
say  one  thing  when  it  is  quite  as  likely  he  meant  another. 

The  treatment  which  the  Philippian  passage  has  long  re 
ceived  is  a  discredit  to  commentators.  Every  Greek  scholar 
knows  quite  well  that  the  far  more  general  and  fundamental 
sense  of  the  word  translated  form  is  outward  semblance, 
shape,  fashion,  appearance,  and  from  this  sense  the  meaning 

matic  authority)  is  so  heavily  against  the  punctuation  applied,  and  the 
rendering  given,  in  the  Authorized  Version,  that  a  reviser,  whatever  his 
private  opinion  may  be,  ought,  in  Christian  truthfulness  and  honesty,  to 
apprise  English  readers  of  the  ambiguity  of  the  text. 

Another,  though  in  comparison  trivial,  blemish  of  the  Dean's  work, 
is  that,  in  every  instance  except  one,  he  translates  Greek  which  is,  word 
for  word,  the  God  and  Father  of  us,  by  God  and  our  Father.  The  sense  is 
undoubtedly  that  which  he  has  in  the  exceptional  instance  (Phil.  iv.  20) 
given  Our  God  and  Father.  The  phrase,  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  he  always  construes  literally  and  correctly  ;  yet  in  Eev.  i.  6, 
he  declines  to  substitute  unto  his  God  and  Father  for  the  less  faithful  ren 
dering  unto  God  and  His  Father. 

The  English  reader  should  consult,  along  with  Alford's  Revised  Ver 
sion,  Sharpe's  well-known  translation  from  Griesbach's  Text.  These 
together  will  put  him  in  possession  of  the  true  sense  of  the  Original.  If 
he  adds  "  Tischendorf  s  English  Testament,  with  various  readings  from 
the  three  most  celebrated  Manuscripts,"  he  will  have  every  aid  of  real 
importance,  as  regards  translation  and  Text.  The  three  volumes  I  have 
named  may  all  be  purchased  for  five  shillings. 

23 


354      "  FOIIM    OF   GOD,"   "  EQUALITY   WITH    GOD."    ETC. 

of  the  very  difficult  and  figurative  expression,  form  of  God, 
should  be  derived  ;  yet,  because  form  may,  in  the  refinement 
of  philosophical  diction,  possibly  signify,  "  aggregate  of  the 
qualities,"  "  sp'ecific  character,"  it  is  boldly  declared  to  be,  in 
the  Apostle's  statement,  tantamount  to  essence,  nature,  pos 
session  of  distinctive  attributes.  It  is  used  in  only  one  other 
instance  in  the  New  Testament  (Mark  xvi.  12),  where  the 
expression,  lie  appeared  in  another  form,  does  not  mean  in 
another  essence  or  nature  (comp.  Septuagint ;  Job  iv.  16; 
Isa.  xliv.  13  ;  Dan.  v.  6,  9, 10  ;  vii.  28 ;  also  Wisdom  xviii.  1). 
The  cognate  and  derivative  words  occurring  in  the  New 
Testament  do  not  aid  to  sustain  the  conjecture  which  doc 
trinal  considerations  recommend  to  Orthodox  scholars.  The 
similar  designation,  image  of  God,  is  protected  by  its  appli 
cation  to  man  ;  otherwise  subtle  theologians  would  have  dis 
cerned  that,  since  it  cannot  relate  to  external  shape,  it  must 
imply  identity  of  "  essential  qualities "  and  "  distinctive 
attributes." 

The  phrase  assumed  to  betoken  equality  with  God  more 
probably  betokens  likeness  to  God,  the  being  as  God,  and  all 
attempts  to  make  it  definite  by  inserting  the  particulars,  or 
specifying  the  extent  of  resemblance,  are  mere  surmises.* 
Together  with  the  previous  phrase, /or;??  of  God,  it  indicates 
with  vague  generality  a  Godlike  condition,  but  could  never 
be  accepted  as  an  allegation  of  Christ's  Godhead,  without  a 
strong  previous  persuasion  that  Christ  is  God.  Its  evidential 
force  for  minds  not  already  persuaded  of  our  Lord's  Deity  is 
rather  adverse  to  the  dogma,  because  the  subject  of  Christ's 
dignity  and  exaltation  was  in  the  Apostle's  thoughts,  and, 
unless  checked  by  inspiration,  he  may  be  fairly  presumed  to 
have  written  freely  from  the  depth  and  fulness  of  his  faith 
and  knowledge.  Ambiguity  and  reserve  imply  the  absence 
of  clear  conviction  and  didactic  purpose ;  and  if  the  stupen 
dous  dogma,  "  Jesus  is  the  Most  High  God,"  had  not  been 
already  proclaimed  and  established  among  the  converts  at 

*  No  man  with  a  competent  knowledge  of  Greek  can  deny  the  greater 
probability  that  taa  is  used  adverbially,  in  the  sense  of  as  or  like. 


DOUBTFUL   RENDERING   OF   I   JOHN   V.  13-15.  355 

Philippi,  they  certainly  would  never  have  gathered  it  from 
doubtful  and  dark  phraseology.  The  scope  and  diction  of 
the  Philippian  Epistle  generally,  as  I  have  shown  in  examin 
ing  an  earlier  section  of  Mr.  Liddon's  Lectures,  lend  no  sup 
port  to  the  notion  that  St.  Paul  believed  and  taught  the 
Essential  Equality  of  Christ  and  the  Father. 

The  Fathers  of  the  early  Christian  centuries  are  eminently 
instructive  in  their  treatment  of  the  passage  we  have  been 
considering.  Handling  it  with  vivacious  imagination,  pene 
trating  boldness,  and  untiring  pertinacity,  they  smite  with 
it  numerous  heresies,  and  construct  from  its  condensed 
and  comprehensive  teachings  impregnable  defences  for  the 
Church's  Faith  concerning  the  Nature  and  Person  of  Christ. 
Bishop  Bull,  a  diligent  student  of  their  writings,  was  truly  a 
partaker  of  their  spirit  when  he  said  respecting  the  seemingly 
cloudy,  metaphorical,  and  difficult  phrases  addressed  to  the 
converts  at  Philippi,  "  This  one  passage,  if  it  be  rightly  un 
derstood,  is  sufficient  for  the  refutation  of  all  the  Heresies 
against  the  Person  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ"  (JDef.  NIC. 
Fid,}. 

With  laudable  self-restraint,  Mr.  Liddon  abstains  from 
appealing  to  the  "  less  clearly  traceable  belief  in  the  brief 
Epistles  of  St.  Peter,"  but  he  hazards  the  remark  :  "  Yet  1 
Peter  iv.  11  is  a  doxology  framed,  as  it  might  seem,  for  com 
mon  use  on  earth  and  in  heaven.  See  also  2  Peter  iii.  18." 
In  the  former  of  these  texts,  the  doxology  is,  in  all  probabil 
ity,  directed  to  God,  "  Whom  the  Apostle  would  have  to  be 
glorified  in  all  things  through  Jesus  Christ ; "  but  the  wording 
is  ambiguous,  a  circumstance  which  begets  absolute  confi 
dence  in  a  Christian  controversialist. 

What  is  less  conspicuous  in  St.  Peter  is,  however,  "  espe 
cially  observable  in  St.  John.  St.  John  is  speaking  of  the  Son 
of  God,  when  he  exclaims,  '  This  is  the  confidence  that  we 
have  in  Him,  that,  if  we  ask  any  thing  according  to  His  Will, 
He  heareth  us :  and  if  we  know  that  He  hcareth  us,  we  know 
that  we  have  the  petitions  that  we  desired  of  Him '  (1  John 
v.  13-15).  The  natural  construction  of  this  passage  seems 


356  THE   DESCRIPTIONS   AND    VISIONS 

to  oblige  us  to  refer  of  Him,  and  His  Will,  to  the  Son  of 
God  (ver.  13).  The  passage  1  John  iii.  21,  22,  does  not  for 
bid  this :  it  only  shows  how  fully  in  St.  John's  mind  the 
honor  and  prerogatives  of  the  Son  are  those  of  the  Father" 
(p.  374). 

A  man  who  has  no  theory  to  serve  will  perceive  that  we 
cannot  insist  011  construing  the  pronoun  with  reference  to 
the  last  antecedent  title,  Son  of  God.  Verses  12  and  13  are 
parenthetical,  and  the  confidence  spoken  of  in  verse  14  is,  by 
the  more  natural  construction,  confidence  towards  God,  of 
Whom  it  had  been  affirmed  in  verse  11,  "  God  gave  to  us 
eternal  life,  and  this  life  is  in  His  Son."  Macknight  rightly 
paraphrases :  "  This  is  the  boldness  which  we  have  with  the 
Father,  through  our  believing  on  His  Son,"  &c.  The  pas 
sage  (iii.  21,  22),  w^hich  unquestionably  relates  to  the  Father, 
is  in  its  phraseology  parallel  and  illustrative,  and  enhances 
the  contextually  strong  probability  that  in  v.  14, 15,  the  refer 
ence  is  to  God. 

With  a  curious  disregard  for  the  plain  sense  of  the  very 
texts  which  he  quotes,  — unless,  indeed,  his  object  is  to  infer, 
in  the  teeth  of  the  Apostle's  language,  the  Godhead  of  the 
Lamb,  —  Mr.  Liddon  brings  forward  the  Apocalyptic  vision 
of  "  the  adoration  Above,  where  the  wounded  Humanity  of 
our  Lord  is  throned  in  the  highest  heavens  "  (Rev.  v.  6-14). 
The  Lamb  slain  and  glorified  is  first  declared  to  be  "  worthy 
to  receive  the  power,  and  riches,  and  wisdom,  and  strength, 
and  honor,  and  glory,  and  blessing"  (ver.  12),  and  then  every 
creature  joins  in  saying,  "  Blessing,  and  honor,  and  glory,  and 
power  be  unto  Him  that  sitteth  upon  the  throne,  and  unto 
the  Lamb,  for  ever  and  ever."  This  "  hymn  of  the  whole 
visible  creation"  Mr.  Liddon  introduces  with  the  liberally 
imaginative  statement :  "  All  created  life,  whether  it  wills  or 
not,  lives  for  Christ's  as  for  the  Father's  glory."  But  the 
chapter  from  which  Mr.  Liddon's  argument  is  drawn  does 
not  in  the  smallest  degree  betray  an  intention  to  equalize 
Christ  with  God.  The  Lamb  is  clearly  distinguished  from 
God.  He  is  called  "  the  Lion  which  is  of  the  tribe  of  Judah, 


OP   THE   BOOK   OP   REVELATION.  357 

the  Root  of  David"  (ver.  5);  and  is  pronounced  to  be 
"  worthy  to  take  the  Book,  and  to  open  the  seals  thereof; 
because  He  was  slain,  and  did  redeem  to  God  by  His  blood, 
out  of  every  kindred,  and  tongue,  and  people,  and  nation ; 
and  did  make  them  unto  our  God  a  kingdom  and  priests." 
The  adoration,  so  far,  is  most  palpably  not  to  Jesus  as  God, 
but  to  Jesus  as  Redeemer;  and  in  verse  13  there  is,  as  I  have 
before  observed,  no  trace  of  identity,  or  unity  of  nature,  and 
a  very  manifest  separation  of  persons,  between  Him  that 
sitteth  upon  the  throne  and  the  Lamb.  To  show  "  how  the 
Redeemed  Church  on  earth  bears  her  part  in  this  univer 
sal  chorus  of  praise,"  Mr.  Liddon  cites  Rev.  i.  5,  6  :  "  Unto 
Him  That  loveth  us,  and  washed  us  from  our  sins  in  His 
blood,  and  made  us  a  kingdom  and  priests  unto  His  God  and 
Father ;  to  Him  be  the  glory,  and  the  dominion,  for  ever  and 
ever.  Amen ;  "  —  words,  be  it  remembered,  which  follow 
immediately  after  the  description :  "  Jesus  Christ,  the  faith 
ful  Witness,  the  First-born  of  the  dead,  and  the  Ruler  of 
the  kings  of  the  earth."  It  is  possible  the  writer  may,  in  the 
ascription  of  glory,  have  had  Christ's  God  and  Father  in 
view,  but  grammatical  construction  refers  the  clause  to  Christ. 

The  feelings  of  those  who  deny,  from  the  Protestant 
ground  of  reasonably  interpreted  Scripture,  the  dogma  which 
Mr.  Liddon  upholds,  may,  I  should  imagine,  be  here  expressed 
in  his  own  language:  "You  will  not,  my  brethren,  mistake 
the  force  and  meaning  of  this  representation  of  the  adora 
tion  of  the  Lamb  in  the  Apocalypse.  .  .  .  You  cannot  doubt 
for  one  moment  Who  is  meant  by  '  the  Lamb,'  or  what  is 
the  character  of  the  worship  that  is  so  solemnly  offered  to 
Him"  (p.  376). 

When  we  are  admonished  that,  "  To  adore  Christ's 
Deity  while  carefully  refusing  to  adore  His  Manhood  would 
be  to  forget  that  His  Manhood  is  for  ever  joined  to  His 
Divine  and  Eternal  Person,  Which  is  the  real  Object  of  our 
adoration,"  we  are  tempted  to  ask  how  it  is  that,  in  the 
Apocalypse,  Christ  never  receives  the  appellation  G-od,  to 
which  "  His  Divine  and  Eternal  Person "  entitles  Him  ? 


358  THE   GKOUND    IN   SCRIPTURE 

Why  is  the  title  of  Deity  so  jealously  restricted  to  the  Al 
mighty  Father  ?  A  writer  with  no  stronger  incentive  than 
a  cherished  speculative  suspicion  that  Christ  was,  in  His  Per 
sonal  Being,  a  Form  of  the  Self-existent  Nature,  could  scarcely 
refrain  from  sometimes  calling  Him  God,  especially  if  He 
were  desirous  to  extol  Christ,  and  depict  Christ's  highest 
dignity. 

What  intimations  the  New  Testament  affords  of  a  worship 
of  Jesus  entailing  the  inference,  "Jesus  is  in  Essential  Na 
ture  the  Most  High  God,"  my  readers  can  now  judge.  If 
the  decision  of  the  Church  is  authoritative  and  binding,  then 
any  intimations,  however  ambiguous,  and  however  scanty, 
are  enough,  and  no  evidence  to  the  contrary  can  have  weight ; 
but  if  the  appeal  is  to  Holy  Scripture  as  a  document  of 
rational  proof,  the  assertion  "  Jesus  was  worshipped  with  the 
adoration  due  to  God  "  is  thoroughly  baseless. 

Mr.  Liddon  rightly  contends  that  the  homage  paid  to 
Jesus  "  cannot  be  accounted  for,  and  so  set  aside,  as  being 
part  of  an  undiscriminating  cultus  of  heavenly  or  superhu 
man  beings  in  general.  Such  a  cultus  finds  no  place  in  the 
New  Testament,  except  when  it,  or  something  very  much 
resembling  it,  is  expressly  discountenanced "  (Acts  x.  25 ; 
xiv.  13-15  ;  Col.  ii.  18  ;  Rev.  xxii.  8,  9).  But  this  statement, 
though  true,  is  not  to  the  point,  because,  in  the  view  of  the 
Canonical  Writers,  Jesus  did  not  rank  among  heavenly  or 
superhuman  Beings  in  general,  but  held  peculiar,  unshared, 
position  and  office  between  God  and  man.  The  tributes  of 
affection,  reverence,  and  homage  paid  to  Him,  are  attached 
to  the  qualifications  with  which  God  has  enriched  Him;  to 
the  pre-eminent  place  to  which  God  has  exalted  Him,  and 
the  glorious  dignity  which  God  has  bestowed  upon  Him. 
If  numerous  and  perspicuous  announcements  are  not  forcibly 
put  aside ;  if  constant  implications  of  a  very  direct  kind  are 
not  refused  a  hearing ;  if  every  rule  of  rational  exposition  is 
not  reversed,  —  the  claims  of  Jesus  all  flow,  not  from  intrin 
sic  and  independent  attributes  of  Self-existent  Essence,  but 
from  the  originating  Will  and  Energy  of  an  Omnipotent 


OF  CHRIST'S  RIGHT  TO  HOMAGE.  359 

Producer ;  from  what  God  has  made  Him  to  be ;  and  from, 
what  He  has  become  in  virtue  of  derived  powers,  a  Divine 
Mission,  and  the  abiding,  imparted  presence  of  His  God  and 
Father.  And  while  this  guiding  fact  stands  out  conspicuously 
in  the  pages  of  the  New  Testament,  "  the  worship  of  Jesus," 
were  it  much  more  than  the  meagre,  scantily  displayed  thing 
it  is,  could  not  possibly  imply  His  Godhead  or  raise  Him 
to  a  level  with  the  Supreme  One,  Whose  beloved  and  glori 
fied  Offspring,  Servant,  and  Ambassador  He  is.  There  is  no 
need  for  the  clearly  drawn  "distinction  between  a  primary 
and  a  secondary  worship,"  on  the  absence  of  which  Mr.  Lid- 
don  builds.  The  honors  rendered  to  the  glorified  Redeemer 
and  Head  of  the  Church  are  not  rendered  to  Him  as  God, 
nor  as  one  of  a  class  of  superhuman  Beings,  and  still  less  as 
a  rival  of  God,  but  as  one  whom  God  has  made  worthy  of 
honor. 

Viewing  the  subject  from  the  Scriptural  as  distinguished 
from  the  Ecclesiastical  standing-point,  Mr.  Liddon  appears 
to  me  to  exaggerate,  color,  and  misrepresent  the  New  Testa 
ment  indications  of  the  homage  accorded  to  Jesus.  He 
chooses  to  ignore  altogether  the  distinctly  specified  grounds 
of  conferred  office,  qualification,  and  dominion,  which  explain 
that  homage,  and  then  he  sophistically  handles  the  English 
term  "  worship  "  as  though  it  were  a  fair  equivalent  for  all 
the  Greek  terms,  and  were  definite  enough  to  exclude  all 
gradations  of  lower  and  higher,  whenever  the  gradation 
is  not  formally  mentioned.  The  worship  of  respect,  rever 
ence,  humble  request,  and  gratitude,  is,  unquestionably, 
denoted  in  the  New  Testament  by  several  words  differing 
from  each  other  in  range  and  force,  the  stronger,  more  re 
stricted,  and  more  sacred  of  which  are  never  found  in  con 
junction  with  the  Name  of  the  Ascended  Jesus,  yet  Mr. 
Liddon  could  permit  himself  to  pen  and  publish  the  sentence  : 
"  Worship  is  claimed  for,  and  is  given  to,  God  alone  ;  and  if 
Jesus  is  worshipped,  this  is  simply  because  Jesus  is  God" 
(p.  378). 

With  Patristic  arguments  for  "  the  worship  of  Jesus  Christ," 


360  TESTIMONY    OF   SUBAPOSTOLIC   FATHERS. 

I  am  not  concerned.  I  will  only  remark  that,  in  estimating 
their  value,  the  exact  question  at  issue  must  not  be  lost  sight 
of;  viz.,  whether  Christ  was  worshipped  under  the  persuasion 
of  His  being  truly,  and  in  the  full  sense,  God,  —  in  Essence, 
Nature,  and  Attributes  the  Uncreated,  Almighty  Father's 
Equal.  From  the  first  Epistle  of  Clement,  the  earliest  of 
the  authentic  writings  ascribed  to  the  Subapostolic,  or,  as 
they  are  sometimes  called,  the  Apostolic  Fathers,  no  testi 
mony  conducive  to  Mr.  Liddon's  dogma  can  be  cited,  and  its 
absence  agrees  with  the  opinion  that  the  dogma  was  pro 
gressively  revealed  through  the  Church,  and  not  through  the 
preaching  and  writings  of  the  Evangelists  and  Apostles. 
The  exceedingly  uncertain  authorship,  and  certainly  corrup 
ted  text,  of  the  Ignatian  Epistles,  condemns  such  language 
as :  "  Even  before  the  end  of  the  first  century,  St.  Ignatius 
bids  the  Roman  Christians  '  put  up  supplications  to  Christ ' 
on  his  behalf,  that  he  might  attain  the  distinction  of  mar 
tyrdom." 

"  The  Epistle  of  St.  Polycarp  to  the  Philippians  "  does  not, 
either  in  the  introductory  benediction  or  the  twelfth  chapter, 
teach  or  imply  that  Christ  is  God,  or,  as  an  Object  of  wor 
ship,  on  a  par  with  God.  The  date  of  Polycarp's  Epistle  is 
towards  the  middle  of  the  second  century ;  the  date  of  the 
story  of  his  martyrdom,  which  successive  transcribers  have 
probably  garnished,  is,  of  course,  somewhat  later. 

The  writings  of  "St.  Justin"  (about  A.D.  150)  are,  when 
impartially  examined,  seen  to  be  strikingly  deficient  in  the 
dogmatic  insight  and  accurate  definition  which  distinguish 
the  teaching  of  the  maturer  Church  concerning  the  Nature, 
Person,  and  worship  of  Jesus  Christ. 

In  the  Authorized  Services  of  the  Church  of  England, 
devotional  addresses  to  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  are  very  fre 
quent.  Mr.  Liddon  reckons  the  number  of  them  to  exceed 
eighty,  of  which  the  Litany,  a  Service  of  peculiar  form,* 

*  "  The  Litany  is  one  of  the  parts  of  the  Prayer  Book  which  has  its 
origin  in  a  time  neither  primitive  nor  reformed.  ...  Its  form  is  very 
peculiar,  and  the  explanation  is  to  be  sought  in  the  occasion  of  its  first 


WORSHIP    OF   CHRIST   IN  361 

contains  more  than  half,  while  the  numerous  Collects,  the 
most  precious  of  the  Church's  prayers,  contain  only  three.  On 
the  whole,  there  can  be  no  question  the  Church  of  England, 
in  common  with  the  older  branches  of  the  Church  Catholic, 
has  advanced  greatly  beyond  merely  Scriptural  practice  and 
proportion,  in  her  public  religious  services.  She  has  hitherto 
borne  her  part  in  the  grand  work  of  diffusing  and  inculcating 
the  plenary  Ecclesiastical  Revelation  in  which  Holy  Script 
ure  is  but  a  subordinate  factor.  She  has  inherited,  and  holds 
fast,  more  than  Scripture,  and  is  therefore  a  living  portion 
of  that  organized  and  inspired  Body,  whose  duty,  in  relation 
to  Scripture,  has  been  to  bring  forth  what  is  secreted,  to 
complete  what  is  imperfect,  and  in  so  doing  to  suppress  and 
nullify  some  conclusions  delusively  apprehensible  by  reason 
and  common  sense.  At  the  present  time,  through  the  har 
monious  action  of  a  majority  of  her  Priests,  the  Church  of 
England  fulfils  her  task,  in  maintaining  a  well-developed  dog 
matic  faith,  of  which  the  most  ancient  extant  Creed  (the  Apos 
tles']  is  no  sufficient  presentation.  The  wants  which  the 
Bible  does  not  meet,  and  the  faith  which  the  Bible  does  not 
establish,  are  met  and  established,  not  merely  by  the  JSTicene 
and  Athanasian  Creeds,  and  by  forms  for  public  prayer,  but 
also  by  hymns  and  forms  for  private  prayer.  The  heretical 
interpretations  of  devout  but  erring  common  sense  are  an 
swered  not  by  investigation  and  reasoning,  but  by  multiplied 
repetitions,  in  the  most  sacred  and  influential  associations  of 
the  doctrine  or  practice  whose  Scripturalness  is  challenged. 
Convinced  that  iminquiring  habit  is  the  safest  road  in  theo 
logical  belief,  the  Clergy  confirm  their  lay  brethren  in  the 
faith  of  Christ's  Godhead,  by  the  selection  and  congrega- 

introduction.  The  usual  mode  of  addressing  our  prayers,  both  in  the 
Scriptures  and  in  the  Prayer  Book  is  to  God,  our  Father,  through  Jesus 
Christ.  This  is  the  form  of  the  Lord's  Prayer,  after  which  manner  we 
are  all  taught  to  pray.  .  .  .  This  was  the  general  mode  of  prayer  through 
out  the  early  ages  of  the  Church.  Even  those  earlier  forms  of  prayer 
which  are  most  like  the  Litany  are,  for  the  first  three  hundred  years  of 
the  Church,  always  addressed  direct  to  God  the  Father."  —  Dean  Stanley 
on  the  Litany  :  Good  Words,  July,  1868. 


362  THE    A.NGLICAN   CHURCH. 

tional  use  of  hymns  in  which  Jesus  is,  with  studied  distinct 
ness,  and  systematic  frequency,  declared  to  be  internal  to  the 
One  Divine  Nature,  and  equalized  with  the  Father  in  expres 
sions  of  supplication  and  praise.  Forms  for  family  prayer, 
likewise  compiled  and  recommended  by  the  Clergy,  address 
Jesus  as  God  in  the  language  of  highest  adoration.  These 
methods  engrain  the  Church's  doctrine,  while  they  help  to 
shape  and  feed  the  adoring  instinct  of  which  the  One  God  is 
the  proper  Object.  Mr.  Liddon  rightly  observes  :  "  Hymnody 
actively  educates,  while  it  partially  satisfies  the  instinct  of 
worship  ; "  and  there  can  be  no  fair  objection  against  making 
it,  and  the  words  of  our  household  worship,  vehicles  for  fixing 
and  propagating  the  persuasion  that  Christ  is  God,  provided 
only  the  persuasion  is  rested  on  Ecclesiastical  and  not  on 
solety  Scriptural  revelation.  But  there  is  a  very  palpable 
inconsistency  between  the  Protestant  position  that  Holy 
Scripture  is  the  sole  sufficient  and  Divine  Rule  of  Faith  and 
Practice,  and  the  use  of  prayers  and  hymns,  whose  sentiments 
arid  diction  are  either  utterly  devoid  of  Scriptural  sanction, 
or  quite  out  of  Scriptural  proportion. 

Men  who  decline  to  see  revelation  outside  the  Canonical 
pages  seem  to  be  overtaken  by  a  retributive  intellectual 
blindness,  when  they  take  in  hand  to  promulgate  the  Deity 
of  Jesus.  If  we  confess  that  the  Incarnate  God  still  speaks 
through  His  Church  no  less  certainly  than  He  speaks  through 
the  written  Gospels,  we  can,  without  inconsistency,  accept,  in 
Christian  forms  of  prayer  and  praise,  modification,  enlarge 
ment,  and  completion  of  the  temporary  and  imperfect  model 
given  in  the  Lord's  Prayer,  and  the  introductory  direction, 
After  this  manner  pray  ye.  Our  Divine  Master's  utterances 
in  His  living  Church  are  not  shaped  and  restrained  by  His 
voice  in  the  Evangelical  histories.  There  is  no  need  that  the 
one  should  be,  to  the  ear  of  reason,  consonant  with  the 
other.  Upon  His  first  disciples  He  laid  the  injunction: 
"  when  ye  pray,  say  Our  Father.'1'1  His  praying  followers  in 
the  nearer  ages.  He,  by  means  of  His  Church,  teaches  to 
address  Himself,  as  often  and  as  devoutly  as  they  address 


SIGNIFICANCE    OF   THE    CHURCHES    PRACTICE.  363 

the  Father,  if  not  more  often  and  more  devoutly !  To  His 
first  disciples  He  is  reported  to  have  said,  "  I  am  the  Way, 
and  the  Truth,  and  the  Life :  no  man  cometh  unto  the  Fa 
ther  but  through  Me ; "  to  His  disciples  of  later  date  He,  by 
means  of  His  Church,  says,  "  I  am  the  Goal ;  no  nature  and 
attributes  excel  mine ;  look  to  me  as  your  God,  the  rightful 
and  sufficing  Object  of  your  devotions."  The  earlier  instruc 
tion  survives  only  as  a  slightly  flavoring  ingredient  amid  the 
more  recently  vouchsafed  knowledge.  Revelation  is  a  per 
petually  unrolling  scroll ;  identity  is  not  lost,  but  growth  is 
constant,  and  new  particulars  and  adjustments  are  superadded. 
Together  with  unbroken  continuity,  there  is  marvellous  devel 
opment.  The  Old  Testament,  the  Newr,  and  explanatory, 
complementary,  and  superior  to  both,  the  Church,  — :  such  is 
the  outline  and  proportion  in  the  series  of  messages  sent  from 
Heaven  for  the  guidance  of  Christian  worship.  The  varia 
tions  and  progress  impressively  proclaim  an  abiding  presence 
of  the  Incarnate  God,  and  the  high  prerogatives  with  which 
that  presence  clothes  His  Organ,  the  Church.  A  trustful 
unparleying  faith,  likewise,  is  invigorated  by  well-sustained 
exercise  ;  and  the  All-Wise  Source  of  our  Intelligence  affords 
larger  latitude  for  ennobling  virtue,  in  the  self-denying  re 
pression  of  His  dangerous  intellectual  gifts.  From  the 
Protestant  point  of  view,  the  expansion  and  divergence  of 
Christian  worship  into  its  present  shape  may  appear  disso 
nant  and  shameful ;  but  from  the  Catholic  it  is  harmoniously 
suggestive  and  sublime. 

The  fact  is  very  observable  that  the  customary  prayers  to 
Jesus  are  not  directed  to  Him  in  the  character  and  office  of 
High  Priest,  Advocate,  and  Intercessor,  which  a  few  passages 
of  Scripture  assign  Him,  but  in  the  character  of  Almighty 
God.  To  entreat  Him  to  intercede  with  God  would  be  mak 
ing  one  Personal  God  intercede  with  another,  and,  in  other 
respects,  would  not  suit  Orthodox  ideas,  or  correspond  with 
Ecclesiastical  definitions  of  Christ's  perfect  Deity. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

Texts  which  imply  or  assert  Limitation  of  Knowledge  in  Christ.  — 
There  is  nothing  to  prompt  or  justify  Mr.  Liddon's  forced  explana 
tions.  —  Asserted  illuminative  power  of  the  dogma  of  Christ's  Deity, 
in  relation  to  the  Atonement.  — Examination  of  an  attempt  to  meet 
the  objection  that  the  dogma  detracts  from  the  value  of  Christ's  Life 
as  an  ethical  model  for  Mankind.  —  The  dogma  cannot  be  shown  to 
be  morally  fruitful  in  giving  intensity  to  Christian  virtues,  and  is  not 
calculated  to  promote  the  devotion  of  the  heart  to  God. 

IN  his  last  Lecture,  Mr.  Liddon  explains  and  guards,  from  his 
point  of  view,  the  statement  (St.  Luke  ii.  52),  Jesus  increased 
in  wisdom  and  stature.  He  approaches  the  subject  with 
modest  diffidence,  his  own  previous  theories  making  a  plain 
text  difficult  and  obscure. 

"  We  can  scarcely  doubt,"  he  concedes,  "  that  an  intellectual 
development  of  some  kind  in  Christ's  human  soul  is  indicated. 
This  development,  it  is  implied,  corresponded  to  the  growth 
of  His  bodily  frame.  The  progress  in  wisdom  was  real  and 
not  merely  apparent,  just  as  the  growth  of  Christ's  Human 

Body  was  a  real  growth But,  on  the  other  hand,  St. 

Luke  had  previously  spoken  of  the  Child  Jesus  as  being  filled 
with  wisdom  (ii.  40) ;  and  St.  John  (i.  14)  teaches  that,  as  the 
AVord  Incarnate,  Jesus  was  actually  full  of  truth.  St.  John 
means  not  only  that  our  Lord  was  veracious,  but  that  He  was 
fully  in  possession  of  the  objective  truth  "  (p.  456). 

Now  every  Protestant  of  Orthodox  faith,  and  perhaps 
many  Catholics,  will  be  quite  confident  that  St.  Luke,  before 
he  wrote  his  Gospel,  had  apprehended  the  mystery  of  our 
Lord's  Being,  and  saw  in  Jesus  God  Incarnate.  St.  Luke 
had,  as  his  preface  assures  us,  taken  some  trouble  to  search 
out  the  facts  of  a  history  about  which  many  had  taken  in 
hand  to  furnish  accounts.  He  may  therefore  be  presumed 


CHRIST'S  "  INCREASE  IN  WISDOM."  365 

to  have  written  with  knowledge,  accuracy,  and  consistency ; 
and,  particularly,  with  a  thoughtful  regard  to  the  grand  mys 
tery  which  must  necessarily,  wherever  it  is  believed,  dominate 
and  mould  all  unrestrained  didactic  expression.  The  question 
then  simply  is,  whether  a  writer  would  be  likely,  if  he  held 
Jesus  to  be  the  Infinite  God  robed  in  human  flesh,  to  say  of 
Him  that  He  increased  in  wisdom  and  stature,  and  in  favor 
with  God  and  man?  Would  not  his  conceptions  and  his 
words  arrange  themselves  around,  and  take  their  form  from, 
his  knowledge  of  the  Divine  Personal  Being  of  Jesus?  As 
suming  Jesus  to  be  a  Divine  Person,  Consubstantial  with  the 
Omniscient  God,  is  it  reverent,  judicious,  or  even  intelligible, 
to  declare,  He  increased  in  icisdom  and  in  favor  with  God? 
The  same  sort  of  difficulty  attends  verse  40,  of  which,  as  of 
verse  52,  Mr.  Liddon  quotes  (perhaps  not  inadvertently)  only 
a  fragment,  "  The  child  grew,  and  waxed  strong,  being  filled 
with  wisdom  ;  and  the  grace  (or  favor)  of  God  was  upon 
Him."  *  The  argument  may  be  urged  :  the  Evangelist  Luke 
(taking  for  granted  his  Gospel  has  not  been  interpolated) 
taught  the  miraculous  conception  of  Jesus,  and  nevertheless, 
in  a  loose,  unguarded  way,  wrote  of  the  parents  of  Jesus  (ii. 
27,  41,  43),  and  of  His  father  and  His  mother  (ver.  33 ; 
comp.  ver.  48) ;  but  this  argument  does  not  render  adequately 
probable  incautiousness  of  description  regarding  internal 
qualities  and  relations  to  God. 

In  deducing  from  St.  John  i.  14,  it  is  as  well,  though  it 
may  not  be  convenient,  to  remember  that  the  Evangelist's 
words  are  full  of  grace  and  truth.  Were  the  grace  and 
truth  inherent,  or  imparted? 

The  difference  between  a  miraculous  paternity  of  Christ  in 
the  Virgin's  womb,  through  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  the  assumption  of  our  nature  by  the  Personal  Logos, 
Who  is  in  the  full  sense  God,  must  strike  every  one  who 

*  In  spirit  is  wanting  in  the  Sinaitic  and  Vatican  MSS.  Dean  Alford 
translates  the  present  participle,  becoming  filled.  In  the  other  verses 
quoted  from  Luke  ii.,  I  follow  the  Sinaitic  and  Vatican  readings,  with 
which  the  Vulgate  Version  agrees. 


366  CHRIST'S  AVOWAL  IN  MARK  xiu.  32. 

compares  the  opening  statements  of  the  First  and  Third, 
with  the  prologue  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  To  suppose  the 
difference  amounts  to  radical  discrepancy  in  the  representa 
tions  of  our  Lord's  Person  may  be,  in  Mr.  Liddon's  judg 
ment,  a  "vulgar  rationalistic  expedient;"  but  the  question 
is  :  can  inquiring  reason  and  common-sense  suppose  any  thing 
else,  unless  the  Holy  Ghost  was  Personally  the  Logos,  not- 
only  creating  the  germs  of  His  Own  Humanity,  but  dwelling 
Personally  in  the  Virgin  during  some  months  of  her  preg 
nancy?  And  even  upon  this  latter  supposition  we  sorely 
miss,  in  the  Evangelists,  the  discriminating  perception  and 
lucid  definition  with  which  younger  sons  of  the  Church  ex 
hibit  the  inner  Economy  of  the  Infinite,  Uncreated  Essence. 
Mr.  Liddon  enters  into  a  learned  and  very  labored,  but 
perplexed  and  hesitating  discussion  of  the  avowal  recited  in 
St.  Mark  xiii.  32 :  "  Of  that  day  or  hour  knoweth  none,  no 
not  the  Angels  in  heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but  the  Father." 
In  the  parallel  passage  (St.  Matt,  xxiv.  36),  the  received 
Text  is  in  substantial  accordance,  confining  the  knowledge 
of  the  Father  alone;  but  the  Sinaitic  and  Vatican  Texts 
have  the  words,  neither  the  Son.  Great  Fathers  of  the 
Church,  Western  and  Eastern,  are  appealed  to,  who,  if  not 
unanimous  in  the  details  of  their  exposition,  concur,  as  might 
be  anticipated,  in  the  opinion  that,  whatever  Christ's  words 
may  mean,  they  can  mean  nothing  at  variance  with  the 
hypothesis  of  His  Deity.  That  hypothesis  fills,  in  the  minds 
of  Orthodox  Commentators  in  all  ages,  the  place  of  a  prior 
and  regulative  conclusion.  A  potent  solvent  of  the  tremen 
dous  difficulty  involved  in  this  confession  of  ignorance  is,  of 
course,  found  in  contemplating  our  Lord's  Human  Nature 
apart  from  His  Deity.  In  the  Human  knowledge  of  the 
Incarnate  Son,  the  possible  existence  of  limits  is  admitted ; 
or  we  may  accept  the  admirably  acute  suggestion  that,  for 
the  sake  of  His  disciples  and  to  rebuke  their  forwardness, 
Jesus  refrained  from  gazing-  at  secrets  which,  owing  to  His 
Deity,  were  necessarily  within  the  ken  of  his  mental  vision ; 
or,  we  may  learn  from  "  what  appears  to  be "  the  mind  of 


MR.  LTDDON'S  FORCED  EXPLANATION  OF  IT.        367 

St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  "  that  our  Lord  did  know  as  God, 
but  in  His  love  He  assumed  all  that  belongs  to  real  manhood, 
and  therefore  actual  limitation  of  knowledge"  (p.  461). 

The  recorded  words  of  Christ  contain  nothing  to  prompt 
or  justify  these  forced  and  illusory  explanations.  lu  compar 
ing  the  Church's  doctrine  with  the  language  of  Scripture,  we 
must  always  remember  that  our  Lord's  Personal  Being  is 
seated  in  His  Divine  Nature,  not  in  the  Manhood  which  has, 
by  the  bonds  of  an  indissoluble  union,  been  "taken  into 
God."  The  Church's  standpoint  does  not  permit  the  suppo 
sition  of  His  speaking  as  a  human  Person ;  and,  moreover, 
the  form  of  the  passage  under  examination  does  not  at  all 
encourage  the  notion  that  by  the  Son  Jesus  meant  the  Son 
of  Man,  rather  than  the  Son  of  God.  The  singular  and 
exclusive  character  of  the  Father's  knowledge  is  brought 
into  prominence  by  the  affirming  it  to  be  unparticipated  not 
only  by  the  Angels  in  heaven,  but  even  by  the  Son  of  the 
Father.  On  every  ground,  therefore,  consistent  Ecclesiastical 
interpretation  is  pledged  to  understand  by  the  Son  Christ  in 
His  Superhuman  Person.  Since  the  human  sphere  of  Christ's 
existence  is  not  in  reality  separable  from  the  Superhuman, 
reverence  forbids  us  to  shun  the  direct  sense  of  His  words  by 
interposing  the  hypothesis  of  separability.  Jesus,  Whom  the 
Church  reveals  to  be  God  Incarnate,  is  made  in  the  Gospel 
to  declare  there  is  a  subject  as  to  which  He  is  ignorant;  that 
is  the  simple  fact  for  the  consideration  of  all  who  do  not 
question  the  truthfulness  of  the  record.  Mr.  Liddon  fairly 
states  the  invincible  objection  to  the  assumption  Christ  "  knew 
as  God,  but  was  ignorant  as  Man." 

"Does  not  this  conjunction  of  '  knowledge '  and  'igno 
rance 'in  one  Person,  and  with  respect  to  a  single  subject, 
dissolve  the  unity  of  the  God-man?  Is  not  this  intellectual 
dualism  inconsistent  with  any  conception  we  can  form  of  a 
single  personality?"  He  replies  by  noticing  the  very  wide 
scope  of  the  objection,  and  asks,  "  Is  it  not  equally  valid 
against  other  and  undisputed  contrasts  between  the  Divine 
a'nd  Human  Natures  of  the  Incarnate  Son  ?  For  example,  as 


368  BEARING   OF   CHRIST'S   SUPPOSED    DEITY 

God,  Christ  is  omnipresent;  as  Man,  He  is  present  at  a  par 
ticular  point  in  space.  .  .  .  Let  me  then  ask  whether  this 
co-existence  of  ignorance  and  knowledge,  with  respect  to  a 
single  subject  in  a  single  personality,  is  more  mysterious  than 
a  co-existence  of  absolute  blessedness  and  intense  suffering? 
....  If  as  He  knelt  in  Gethsemane,  Jesus  was  in  one  sphere 
of  existence  All-blessed,  and  in  another  '  sore  amazed,  very 
heavy,  sorrowful  even  unto  death,'  might  He  not  with  equal 
truth  be  in  the  one  Omniscient,  and  in  the  other  subject  to 
limitations  of  knowledge  ?  The  difficulty  is  common  to  all 
the  contrasts  of  the  Divine  Incarnation"  (p.  463). 

The  dogma  Mr.  Liddon  defends,  no  doubt,  involves  all 
these  astounding  contrasts,  but  they  do  not  alleviate  each 
other ;  for  even  in  the  regions  of  theology  the  magnitude 
and  variety  of  the  difficulties  which  a  particular  doctrine 
involves  do  not  illustrate  the  truth  of  that  doctrine.  These 
contrasts  are  all,  upon  rational  principles,  so  many  motives 
to  mistrust,  and  to  searchingly  re-examine  the  foundations 
of  the  doctrine  itself. 

A  number  of  fanciful  pleadings,  the  offshoots  of  assump 
tions,  and  the  reflexes  of  foregone  conclusion,  are  urged  in 
Mr.  Liddon's  final  Lecture.  I  need  do  very  little  more  than 
enumerate  them,  since  they  belong  to  the  outskirts  of  the 
controversy.  "  Christ's  Person  is  the  measure  of  His  Pas 
sion.  His  Deity  illuminates  His  Passion,  and  explains 
Apostolical  language  respecting  the  efficacy  of  His  death." 
Then  again,  "  His  Divinity  explains  and  justifies  the  power  of 
the  Christian  Sacraments,  as  actual  channels  of  supernatural 
grace."  His  Godhead  warrants  the  grace  of  Sacraments; 
Faith  in  It  forbids  their  depreciation.  "  In  view  of  our  Lord's 
Divinity,  we  cannot  treat  as  so  much  profitless  and  vapid 
metaphor  the  weighty  sentences  which  Apostles  have  traced 
around  the  Font  and  the  Altar,  any  more  than  we  can  deal  thus 
lightly  with  the  precious  hopes  and  promises  that  are  graven 
by  the  Divine  Spirit  upon  the  Cross.  The  Divinity  of  Christ 
warrants  the  realities  of  Sacramental  grace  as  truly  as  it 
warrants  the  cleansing  virtue  of  the  Atoning  Blood." 


ON    THE    CHRISTIAN    SACRAMENTS.  369 

Now,  before  we  allege  the  Deity  of  Jesus  to  be  "the 
measure  of  His  passion,"  and  to  "warrant  the  cleansing 
virtue  of  the  Atoning  Blood,"  we  must  be  prepared  with 
ideas  of  Atonement  much  more  lucid  and  definite  than  any 
the  Scriptures  furnish.  The  sacrificial  language  applied  in 
the  New  Testament  to  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Jesus  is 
very  varied,  generally  figurative,  and  not  always  consistent. 
There  is  nothing  in  it  to  denote  that  its  writers  were  endeav 
oring  to  express  with  guarded  accuracy  the  effective  rela 
tion  of  our  Lord's  death  to  the  Mind  and  purposes  of  God, 
or  that  they  were  doing  more  than  freely  employing  the 
coarse  and  imperfect  religious  phraseology  of  their  a<?e  and 
country.  Neither  the  Canonical  Writings,  nor  the  Creeds, 
make  a  particular  conception  of  the  nature  and  efficacy  of 
Christ's  death  an  article  of  Christian  Faith.  General  state 
ments  that  our  Lord's  Incarnation  and  sufferings  were  for, 

O  "  e/ 

on  account  of,  or  for  the  sake  of,  us  men  and  our  salvation, 
impose  no  precise  theory,  and  the  earliest  of  the  Three 
Creeds  does  not  contain  even  these.  Vicarious  punishment, 
judicial  substitution,  satisfaction  to  Divine  justice,  imputed 
sin  and  righteousness,  and  the  like,  are  ideas  which  owe 
their  prominence  and  definiteness  to  a  comparatively  recent 
theology.  Calvinistic  and  Evangelical  divines,  to  whom  the 
judicial  interior  of  the  Almighty  Mind  is  so  familiar,  would 
be  scandalized  at  the  latitudinarian  and  undecided  opinions 
of  numerous  Fathers,  on  the  redemptive  meaning  and  pro 
pitiatory  power  of  Christ's  sufferings.  Archbishop  Anselm, 
in  the  eleventh  century,  was  the  first  who  unfolded  formally, 
and  consolidated  the  theory  which,  with  slight  modifications 
(mostly  for  the  worse),  is  a  treasured  property  of  Orthodox 
Protestants.  The  basis  of  the  theory  is,  that  in  the  death 
of  Jesus  satisfaction  or  payment  was  made  to  the  Almighty, 
and  not,  as  many  preceding  Fathers  had  surmised,  to  the 
Devil,  the  Humanity  of  Jesus  enabling  Him  to  take  up, 
and  His  Godhead  enabling  Him  to  discharge,  the  tremendous 
debt  due  from  offending  creatures  to  their  Omniscient  and 
(Omnipotent  Creator.  The  scheme,  through  all  its  varia- 

24 


370  RELATION    OF   THE    DEITY    OF   JESUS 

tions,  has  been  drawn  out  upon  legal  lines,  but  has  never 
failed  to  outrage  fundamental  principles  of  justice.  The 
human  mind  is  quite  incompetent  to  understand  how  guilt 
and  merit  are  transferable,  though  experience  attests  their 
mighty  and  far-extending  fruits  and  influences.  Analogy 
throws  no  ray  of  light  on  vicarious  punishment,  though 
it  abundantly  illustrates  vicarious  sufferings,  —  not  only  in 
voluntary  endurances  on  the  part  of  the  innocent,  occasioned 
by  the  transgressions  of  the  guilty,  but  also  endurances 
deliberately  incurred  with  a  view  to  succor  and  save  the 
guilty.  Self-sacrifice,  the  willing  bearing,  at  all  costs,  of 
another's  burden,  is,  doubtless,  the  strongest  proof  of  love, 
and  the  surest  channel  of  beneficence ;  I  ut  we  cannot,  with 
out  changing  God  into  something  lower  than  our  own  like- 

o      o  o 

ness,  imagine  Him  to  be  capable  of  punishing  the  guiltless 
instead  of  the  guilty,  or  of  exacting  judicial  satisfaction  and 
payment  for  men's  moral  delinquencies,  from  penal  endur 
ances  in  One  Who  was  morally  unblemished.  By  imagina 
tions  of  this  nature,  God's  perfections  are  doubly  disparaged. 
Unwillingness  to  forgive  freely,  and  willingness  to  be  mollified 
by  undeserved  sufferings,  are  both  ascribed  to  Him.  But  we 
may  be  sure  our  Heavenly  Father  sees  us  as  we  verily  are, 
with  a  vision  on  which  forms  of  forensic  procedure  and  com 
mercial  bargaining  have  no  effect;  and  if  we  heartily  love  and 
revere  Him,  we  shall  stipulate  for  very  explicit,  unmistak 
able  revelation,  before  we  believe  that  any  features  of  His 
dealings  with  us  are  repugnant  to  the  intelligence  and  moral 
sense  which  are  His  implanted  gifts. 

When  a  preacher,  with  the  qualifications  of  talent  and 
culture  presupposed  in  the  office  of  Hampton  Lecturer,  talks 
of  "  the  cleansing  virtue  of  the  Atoning  Blood,"  he  knows 
he  is  using  words  of  exceeding  vagueness,  though  their 
Scriptural  cadence  may  please  the  ear  of  a  mentally  apa 
thetic  Protestantism,  which  loves  customary  sound  better 
than  ascertainable  sense.  Atonement  may  consist  in  the 
reconciliation  of  man  to  God,  and  "the  cleansing  virtue" 
may  be  exercised  exclusively  in  the  region  of  human  con- 


TO  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  ATONEMENT.       371 

sciousness,  and  not  at  all  in  God's  judicial  estimate  of  human 
deserts.  But  however  this  may  be,  in  lieu  of  perfunctory 
deductions  from  figures  of  speech,  Mr.  Liddon  should  have 
shown  the  existence  of  a  necessary  connection  between  the 
Co-equal  Deity  of  Jesus,  and  His  death  as  an  expiatory  obla 
tion  to  the  First  Person  of  the  Godhead,  on  account  of  the 
original  and  actual  sins  of  mankind.  Perhaps  the  hypothesis 
of  such  a  connection  involves  intellectual  or  moral  absurdity, 
and  will  not  bear  examination.  Duns  Scotus,  one  of  the 
profoundest  masters  in  scholastic  theology,  "rejected  alto 
gether  the  notion  of  a  necessary  Divine  infinity  in  Christ's 
piacular  merits,  declaring  that  the  scheme  of  redemption 
might  have  been  equally  accomplished  by  the  death  of  an 
angel  or  a  righteous  man."  *  At  the  end  of  the  eighteenth 
century  an  Anglican  prelate,  Bishop  Watson,  stated  a  similar 
opinion  in  his  Charges. 

We  are  admonished  how  "  depreciation  of  the  Sacraments 
has  often  been  followed  by  depreciation  of  our  Lord's  Eternal 
Person.  True,  there  have  been  and  are  earnest  believers  in 
our  Lord's  Divinity,  who  deny  the  realities  of  Sacramental 
grace.  But  experience  appears  to  show  that  their  position 
may  be  only  a  transitional  one.  History  illustrates  the 
tendency  to  Humanitarian  declension,  even  in  cases  where 
Sacramental  belief,  although  imperfect,  has  been  for  nearer  to 
the  truth  than  in  the  bare  naturalism  of  Zwingli"  (p.  483). 

This  admonition  to  so-called  Evangelical  Protestants  is,  I 
think,  perfectly  just  and  well-founded.  The  Church's  system 
hangs  together,  and  her  central  dogma  is  endangered  when 
divorced  from  pretensions,  and  teachings,  which  are  at  once 

*  I  borrow  the  information  respecting  Duns  Scotus,  from  the  Disser 
tation  on  "  Atonement  and  Satisfaction,"  one  of  the  numerous  Essays 
which  enrich  Professor  Jowett's  Commentary  on  some  of  St.  Paul's 
Epistles.  In  the  interests  of  theolog}r,  it  is  to  be  regretted  that  the  Com 
mentary  is  not  at  present  easily  procurable. 

Mr.  II.  N.  Oxenham's  History  of  the  "  Catholic  Doctrine  of  the  Atone 
ment  "  is  a  most  useful  compendium.  For  the  aggravation,  if  not  for  the 
existence,  of  some  stumbling-blocks  attaching  to  theories  of  Atonement, 
Protestantism  is  peculiarly  responsible. 


372  RELATION    BETWEEN    CHRIST'S    GODHEAD 

its  products  and  its  preservatives.  But  if  the  dogma  had  a 
sound  and  sufficient  Scriptural  foundation,  it  would  be  able 
in  Protestant  Churches  to  stand  alone,  and  would  also  be 
powerful  enough  to  call  back  and  confirm  subordinate  and 
related  Sacramental  tenets,  instead  of  tottering  whenever 
these  tenets  are  for  a  time  withdrawn. 

Mr.  Liddon  insists :  "  It  is  belief  in  the  Divinity  of  our 
Lord  which  has  enriched  human  life  with  moral  virtues,  such 
as  civilized  paganism  could  scarcely  have  appreciated,  and 
which  it  certainly  could  not  have  created.  The  fruitfulness 
of  this  great  doctrine  in  the  sphere  of  morals  will  be  more 
immediately  apparent,  if  we  consider  one  or  two  samples  of 
its  productiveness"  (p.  488).  The  examples  he  selects  are 
the  graces  of  purity,  humility,  and  charity,  these  being  all, 
according  to  his  judgment,  stimulated,  deepened,  and  en 
larged,  by  faith  in  Christ's  Divinity. 

But  he  could  not  despise,  and  endeavors  to  meet,  the  objec 
tion  that  to  insist  on  Christ's  Godhead  is  to  detract  from  the 
value  of  His  life  as  an  ethical  model  for  mankind.     An  im 
personal  Humanity,  appropriated  and  swayed  by  Omnipotent 
and  All-perfect  Personal  Deity,  obviously  stands  apart  from 
and  above  all  ranges  of  our  human  attainment,  being  in  kind 
unlike  ourselves.     Its  actings  are  not  properly  human  actings, 
and  its  exciting  motive  power  can  never  be  ours.    The  Catho 
lic  Christ  is  not  truly  the  brother  of  men,  but  is  dissociated 
from  them  by  differences  radical,  intrinsic,  irremovable.     He 
is  Very  God,  manifesting  Himself  through  the  organism  of 
our  nature,  not  a  human  person,   crowned   in  moral  man 
hood  by  the  illuminating,  sanctifying  presence  of  God.     His 
life  is  the  Divine  perfection  exemplified  in  some  suggestive 
features,  not  human  perfection  wrought  out  through  an  aux 
iliary  imparted   strength   accessible   to   men.      He   is  not   a 
Leader  far  in  advance,  but  verily  on  our  own  line.     He  is  not 
a  specimen  of  what  we  may  become.     No  gradual  elevation, 
no  acquirements  of  indefinitely  prolonged  progress,  can  so 
transmute  the  conditions  and  possibilities  of  our  Being  as  to 
exalt  us  to  the  level  of  our  Incarnate  God  in  the  inward 


AND    THE   EXAMPLE   GIVEN   BY    HIS   LIFE.  373 

reality  of  a  single  moral  attribute.  The  disciple  can  never  be 
as  the  Master.  His  pattern,  however  much  it  may  quicken 
our  aspirations,  and  raise  and  irradiate  our  consciences,  is 
light  shining  from  another  sphere,  and  cannot  practically  be 
more  than  an  illustrated  edition  of  the  precepts  by  which  He 
Himself,  and  His  Apostle  St.  Paul,  exhort  us  to  be  imitators 
of  God  (Matt.  v.  48;  Luke  vi.  36;  Eph.  v.  1).  The  illustra 
tion,  whatever  may  be  its  value,  is  not  thoroughly  imitable, 
kindred  example,  stimulating  our  energies,  and  satisfying  our 
necessities,  by  showing  what  is  possible  to  man. 

If  example  has  its  greatest  efficacy  when  the  imitated  and 
the  imitators  are  not  dissevered  by  ineffaceable  distinctions 
of  nature  and  capacity,  the  Catholic  doctrine  respecting 
Christ's  Person  cannot  enhance  the  fruit-fulness  of  the  pat 
tern  His  life  supplies.  Mr.  Liddon  perceives  the  difficulties 
these  considerations  interpose,  and,  in  seeking  to  evade  them, 
falls  into  language  which  would  be  more  consistent  if  he 
held  Jesus  to  be  truly  a  man  whom  the  indwelling  of  God's 
Spirit  had  enriched  and  purified,  and  "filled  with  all  the 
fulness  of  God." 

"  Nor  are  Christ's  Human  perfections  other  than  human ; 
they  are  not,  after  the  manner  of  Divine  attributes,  out  of 
our  reach ;  they  are  not  designed  only  to  remind  us  of  what 
human  nature  should,  but  cannot,  be.  We  can  approximate 
to  them,  even  indefinitely.  That  in  our  present  state  of  im 
perfection  we  should  reproduce  them  in  their  fulness  is  in 
deed  impossible ;  but  it  is  certain  that  a  close  imitation  of 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  is  at  once  our  duty  and  our  privilege,  for 
God  has  '  predestinated  us  to  be  conformed '  by  that  which 
we  do,  not  less  than  by  that  which  we  endure,  to  the  Human 
Image  of  His  blessed  Son,  '  that  He  might  be  the  first-born 
among  many  brethren  '  (Ptom.  viii.  29)  "  (p.  486). 

How  can  the  inspiring  presence  of  God,  inhabiting  human 
persons,  "  approximate  even  indefinitely "  to  the  production 
of  results  which  flow  from  the  investiture  of  God  Himself 
with  an  impersonal  humanity?  The  capacities  of  our  nature 
woven  around,  informed,  and  actuated  by  the  Person  of 


374  IN   WHAT    SENSE   IS    CHRIST   THE 

Deity,  are  lifted  into  an  unattainable  region,  and  conditioned 
in  a  manner  which  precludes  the  reality  of  human  brother 
hood.  In  company  with  Mr.  Liddon's  dogma,  St.  Paul's 
description  of  our  Lord  as  the  First-born  (TtowToxoxoj)  among 
many  brethren,  becomes  artificial,  inaccurate,  and  merely 
verbal.  None  other  has  been,  or  can  be,  born  in  the  same 
way,  encompassed  by  the  same  conditions,  equipped  with  the 
same  powers.  Without  human  personality  there  can  be  no 
veritable  human  fraternity,  whatever  there  may  be  of  bene 
ficial  light,  attraction,  and  fellowship.  Mr.  Liddon  grants 
that,  "  Certainly  the  Divine  attributes  of  Jesus  are  beyond 
our  imitation ;  we  can  but  adore  a  boundless  Intelligence  or 
a  resistless  Will."  Yet,  in  the  composition  of  the  God-man, 
does  not  the  Divinity  of  the  central,  energizing  Person  make 
every  human  faculty,  in  action  and  effect,  Divine  ?  A  pas 
sage  which  I  have  already  cited  (see  Chapter  viii.)  quite  con 
sistently  affirms,  "  in  point  of  fact  God,  Incarnate  in  Christ, 
willed  each  volition  of  Christ's  Human  Will." 

But  it  is  contended,  "The  power  of  imitating  Jesus 
conies  from  Jesus  through  His  Spirit,  His  Grace,  His  Pres 
ence.  Now,  as  in  St.  Paul's  day,  'Jesus  Christ  is  in  us 
Christians,  except  we  be  reprobates'  (2  Cor.  xiii.  5).  The 
'power  that  worketh  in  us'  is  no  mere  memory  of  a  distant 
past ;  it  is  not  natural  force  of  feeling,  nor  the  strength  with 
which  self-discipline  may  brace  the  will.  It  is  a  living,  ener 
gizing,  transforming  influence,  inseparable  from  the  presence 
of  '  a  quickening  Spirit '  (1  Cor.  xv.  45),  such  as  is  in  very 
deed  our  Glorified  Lord.  If  Christ  bids  us  follow  Him,  it  is 
because  He  Himself  is  the  enabling  principle  of  our  obe 
dience.  If  He  would  have  us  be  like  unto  Himself,  this  is 
because  He  is  willing,  by  His  indwelling  Presence,  to  re 
produce  His  likeness  within  us.  ...  If  the  Christ  Whom 
we  imitate  be  truly  human,  the  Christ  Who  thus  creates 
and  fertilizes  moral  power  within  us  must  be  Divine"  (p. 
487). 

The  thought  which  underlies  this  language  is  very  enig 
matical.  Does  Mr.  Liddon  believe  there  is  a  Personal  pres- 


ENABLING    PRINCIPLE    OF    OUR    OBEDIENCE?          875 

ence  of  the  Incarnate  Christ  in  Christians,  distinguishable 
from  the  sanctifying  presence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  or  does 
he  suppose  the  Manhood  of  Christ  adds  to  the  resources, 
or  facilitates  the  entrance,  of  God's  Spirit  in  His  actual  con 
tact  with  the  human  spirits  He  touches  and  inspires  ?  Jesus 
Christ  is  in  us,  lives  in  us,  and  is  formed  in  us,  through  the 
operation  of  the  Spirit  of  Him  Who  raised  up  Jesus  from 
the  dead  (Rom.  viii.  9-11 ;  Gal.  ii.  20;  iv.  19).  He  is  said 
to  be  in  us,  and  we  in  the  full  realized  sense  in  Him,  when 
we  are  sincerely  His  followers,  coming  unto  the  Father  by 
Him,  and  being  shaped  by  the  Spirit's  influence  after  the 
pattern  of  His  righteousness.  Xo  one  dreams  of  distorting 
the  continually  recurring  phrase,  in  Christ,  into  metaphysical 
mysticism ;  and  it  is  worse  than  nonsensical  to  twist  the 
infrequent,  indeterminate  expression,  Christ  in  you  (which 
may  mean  among  you},  into  an  announcement  of  His  Per 
sonal  indwelling,  and  a  subsidiary  evidence  of  His  Divinity. 
Acccording  to  Eph.  iii.  20,  the  power  that  worketh  in  us  is 
a  power  exercised  by  "  the  Father,  from  Whom  the  whole 
family  in  heaven  and  earth  is  named."  The  close  context 
of  2  Cor.  xiii.  5  reminds  us  that  "  Christ  was  crucified  through 
weakness,  but  lives  by  the  power  of  God,"  and  that  St.  Paul, 
though  weak  in  (with)  Christ,  expected  to  be  alive  with 
Him  by  the  same  power.  This  does  not  harmonize  with 
the  speculation,  "  Christ  is  God,  and  His  Personal  indwelling 
the  source  of  spiritual  strength."  Notwithstanding  the  pres 
sure  of  Ecclesiastical  commentary,  attentive  readers  will 
be  led  by  the  surrounding  language  strongly  to  suspect  that 
the  quickening  spirit  (1  Cor.  xv.  45)  is  riot  the  Incarnate 
Christ,  but  the  spiritual  body,  which  is,  in  the  order  of 
nature  and  grace,  a  chief  constituent  in  Humanity.  When 
the  more  authentic  reading,  the  second  man  is  from  heaven, 
is  restored  in  verse  47  (comp.  our  house  which  is  from  heaven, 
2  Cor.  v.  2),  all  certainty  that  the  last  Adam  is  a  designa 
tion  of  Christ  vanishes.  Though  our  Lord  is  by  St.  Paul 
contrasted  with  Adam,  He  is  nowhere  in  Scripture  called 
Adam ;  but  to  make  St.  Paul  call  Him  so  creates  the  choicest 


376        "  SACRAMENTAL  UNION"  WITH  THE 

material  for  dogmatic  theorists  —  a  vague  and  elastic 
phrase. 

In  unfolding  his  views  of  the  relation  of  Christ's  Godhead 
to  the  grace  of  purity,  Mr.  Liddon  literalizes  figurative 
phraseology,  in  order  to  ascribe  to  St.  Paul  a  conception  of 
some  ineffable  conjunction  and  incorporation  with  our  Lord's 
Humanity,  —  "a  doctrine  of  Christ's  Sacramental  union  with 
His  people,  which  is  the  veriest  fable,  unless  the  indwelling 
Christ  be  truly  God."  Jesus  Christ,  wre  are  told,  "  folded  our 
human  nature  around  His  Eternal  Person ;  He  made  it  His 
own ;  He  made  it  a  power  which  could  quicken  and  restore 
us.  And  then,  by  the  gift  of  His  Spirit,  and  by  Sacramental 
joints  and  bands,  He  bound  us  to  it  (Col.  ii.  19) ;  He  bound 
us  through  it  to  Himself;  nay,  He  robed  us  in  it ;  by  it  He 
entered  into  us,  and  made  our  members  His  own.  Hence 
forth,  then,  the  tabernacle  of  God  is  with  men  (Rev.  xxi.  3) " 
(p.  490). 

Language  of  this  complexion,  attributing  Omnipresence, 
special  pervasive  spiritual  efficaciousness  and  nutritive  power, 
to  Christ's  Manhood,  is  common  with  writers  of  the  strictly 
Ecclesiastical  school,  and  may  not  be  altogether  devoid  of 
significance  for  those  whose  faith  joyfully  accepts  paradoxes 
at  the  hands  of  a  revealing  Church.  But  from  the  reasonable 
point  of  view  the  language  has  the  fault  of  being  undecipher 
able.  It,  may  always  be  reduced  to  a  nullity  by  the  simple 
demand  for  explanation.  The  attempt  to  present  distinctly 
the  ideas  it  pretends  to  express  displays  its  utter  emptiness. 
The  texts  to  which  reference  is  made  do  not  contain  the  no 
tion  that  Christ's  Humanity  is  infused  into  individual  souls 
as  a  life-giving  and  refreshing  force.  The  Body  of  which 
Christ  is  the  Head,  and  Christians  are  members,  is  the 
Church,  —  the  great  "company  of  all  faithful  people,"  —  not 
Christ's  human  body.  The  clause  (Eph.  v.  30)  which  is  com 
monly  supposed  to  make  the  curious  statement,  we  are 
"members  of  His  flesh  and  His  bones,"  is  wanting  in  the 
three  great  ancient  MSS.,  and  is  almost  indubitably  a  spurious 
addition ;  yet  Mr.  Liddon  (p.  482)  invites  us  to  listen  in  it, 
"  to  Christ's  Apostle  proclaiming,"  &c. 


INCARNATE    DIVINITY   OF    CHRIST.  377 

He  also  cites  1  Cor.  vi.  15,  "  Know  ye  not  that  your  bodies 
are  members  of  Christ  ?  Shall  I  then  take  the  members  of 
Christ,  and  make  them  members  of  an  harlot?  God  forbid." 
The  incorporation  with  Christ  here  alluded  to  is  membership 
in  His  Church.  The  preceding  context  (verses  13  and  14) 
tells  us :  "  the  body  is  for  the  Lord  and  the  Lord  for  the 
body.  And  God  both  raised  the  Lord,  and  will  also  raise  up 
us  by  His  power."  The  succeeding  context  (verses  17  and 
19)  tells  us:  "he  who  is  joined  unto  the  Lord  is  one  spirit;" 
and  pronounces  explicitly  what  the  true  spiritual  indwelling 
is,  —  not  an  inconceivable,  indescribable  residence  or  impar- 
tation  of  Christ's  Humanity,  —  but  the  presence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  Which  our  Heavenly  Father  gives:  "Know  ye  not 
that  your  body  is  the  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost  Which  is  in 
you,  Which  ye  have  from  God  ?  " 

Reason  diligently  searching  Scripture  can  assuredly  dis 
cover  no  intimation  of  an  inhabiting  presence  of  the  Incar 
nate  Christ,  which  can  be  differentiated  from  the  presence  of 
the  Unincarnate  Spirit  of  God.  Without  explanation  and 
proof  from  Scripture  the  notion  of  Sacramental  union  with 
Christ's  Humanity  is  no  basis  for  the  deduction,  —  "He  did 
that  which  He  could  only  do  as  being  in  truth  the  Almighty 
God."  But  Mr.  Liddon  rightly  speaks  of  this  topic  as  being 
"in  a  sphere  so  inaccessible  to  the  measurements  of  natural 
reason,  so  absolutely  controlled  by  the  great  axioms  of  faith." 
I  do  not  dispute  these  "great  axioms;"  but  what  is  their 
parentage,  —  are  they  Scriptural  or  Ecclesiastical? 

The  humility  and  love  exhibited  in  the  life  and  Self-sacri 
fice  of  Jesus  Christ  are,  doubtless,  powerful  incentives  to  the 
cultivation  of  like  virtues  in  Christ's  followers,  both  because 
they  find  a  responsive  witness  in  our  hearts  and  consciences, 
and  because  they  are  believed  to  be  the  fruits  of  a  special 
and  abundant  measure  of  Divine  inspiration  residing  in  One 
Who  was  truly  a  sharer  of  our  nature.  They  are  grand  dis 
plays  in  man  of  qualities  which  God  bestows  and  approves  ; 
and  they  mightily  evoke  and  expand  our  better  feelings,  and 
"  fertilize  the  moral  soil  of  human  life."  But  when  we  cease 


378  IS   THE    DOGMA    OF    CHRIST'S    DEITY 

to  see  in  their  exhibitor  the  real  brotherhood  of  human  per 
sonality,  their  power  as  examples  of  human  graces,  if  it 
escapes  diminution,  can  be  in  no  degree  increased.  Proba 
bly  few  Christians  pursue  the  train  of  thought  which  medi 
tation  on  the  idea  of  Christ's  Infinite  Personality  could  not 
foil  to  Busiest.  If  the  seat  of  His  Personal  Being;  was  Ab- 

OO  O 

solute  Deity,  He  must,  at  every  stage  of  His  life  on  earth, 
have  "  known  the  end  from  the  beginning,"  and,  by  a  Divine 
foresight  of  results,  have  been  incapable  of  that  faith,  trust, 
and  resignation,  which,  at  their  greatest  strength,  are  less 
than  knowledge,  and,  through  being  less,  give  to  human  self- 
sacrifice  its  chief  value.  All  that  He  did  was  done  with  clear 
vision  of  the  joy  and  exaltation  which  awaited  the  human 
portion  of  His  Incarnate  Being,  since  He  was  Himself  "Very 
God,"  and  the  elements  of  Manhood  He  had  drawn  around 
Him  could  have  no  individual  personal  existence  in  separa 
tion  from  His  Godhead.  To  talk  of  lack  of  knowledge,  of 
intermitted  percipience,  of  a  clouded  consciousness  of  the 
Father's  companionship,  or  of  any  of  the  limitations,  intel 
lectual  and  moral,  which  aiford  latitude  for  faith,  and  trust, 
and  dependence,  is  manifestly  to  use  words  which  belie  the 
plainest  dictates  of  the  logical  understanding. 

When  our  ideas  are  formed  upon  the  first  three  Gospels, 
such  representations  are  not  incongruous,  because  even  the 
Divine  indwelling,  which  secured  moral  perfection  in  a 
miraculously  conceived  Human  Person,  might  not  be  neces 
sarily  exempt  from  restriction  and  remission.  But  when  a 
Person  pre-existent,  superhuman,  and  very  highly  exalted, 
though  still  beneath  the  Almighty,  appears,  such  representa 
tions  are  incongruous,  and  therefore  in  the  Fourth  Gospel 
there  is  scarcely  a  trace  of  them.  In  conformity  with  the 
idealism  of  the  Fourth  Evangelist,  the  distinctively  human 
features  of  inward  suffering,  and  exposure  to  temptation, 
which  belong  to  the  earlier  narratives,  are  omitted,  and 
their  place  supplied  by  experiences  more  in  unison  with  the 
metaphysical  conception  of  a  Personally  pre-existent  and 
glorious  Son  of  God.  There  are  no  temporary  breaks  in 


MORALLY    FRUITFUL   IN    HIS   DISCIPLES  ?  379 

the  calm  and  assured  anticipation  with  which  Jesus  looks 
through  and  beyond  the  pre-determined  events  of  what  is 
called  His  Passion.  "  He  knew  that  His  hour  was  come  that 
He  should  depart  out  of  this  world  unto  the  Father.  He 
knew  that  the  Father  had  given  all  things  into  His  hands, 
and  that  He  came  forth  from  God,  and  was  going  to  God  " 
(John  xiii.  1,  3).  The  treachery  of  the  companion  who 
betrayed  Him.  might,  for  a  brief  season,  trouble  His  spirit ; 
but,  when  the  unfaithful  Apostle  went  out  to  complete  his 
perfidy,  Jesus  could  exclaim,  "  Ngw  is  the  Son  of  Man  glori 
fied,  and  God  is  glorified  in  Him"  (ver.  31).  His  prayer 
(John  xvii.)  breathes  intimate  communion  with  the  Father, 
unobscured  perception,  and  confident  assurance  of  approach 
ing  glory.  In  the  Synoptists,  prophetic  prevision,  and  in 
spired  glimpses  of  Resurrection  and  Messianic  exaltation, 
intermingle  with  the  lights  and  shadows  of  human  faith 
and  fear,  resignation  and  despondency.  In  the  Fourth  Gos 
pel  the  creaturely  emotions  and  innocent  infirmities  of  hu 
manity  almost  wholly  disappear  in  presence  of  the  Higher 
Personality  whom  the  earthly  tabernacle  enshrined.  And 
the  delineation  furnished  by  the  latest  Evangelist  becomes 
a  necessity  of  inexorable  logic,  when  we  go  forward  from 
his  position  to  the  dogma  that  the  Person  of  Christ  was  not 
merely  the  glorious,  pre-existent  Son  of  God's  love,  but  a 
veritable  Form  of  the  Self-existent  "Essence,  possessing  every 
attribute  of  Almightiness.  The  perfections  of  such  a  Being, 
"  made  flesh  and  dwelling  among  us,"  may  afford  an  illustrious 
and  inspiriting  ensample ;  but  to  call  them  human  virtues  is 
to  describe  them  with  more  of  laxity  than  of  truth.  The 
holiness  and  energy  of  Personal  Godhead  clothed  with  im 
personal  Manhood  are  not  the  springs  of  sanctity  in  the 
greatest  saint. 

The  assent  of  reflective  and  unprejudiced  minds  must, 
therefore,  be  withheld  from  the  propositions :  "  On  the  one 
hand,  the  doctrine  of  our  Lord's  Divinity  leaves  His  human 
ity  altogether  intact ;  on  the  other,  it  enhances  the  force  of 
His  example  as  a  model  of  the  graces  of  humility  and  love  " 


380          BEARING   OF   THE   DOGMA    OF   CHRIST'S   DEITY 
t 

(p.  496).  With  every  disposition  to  affirm  the  vast  influence 
and  moral  fruitfulness  of  Christ's  example,  men  may  justly 
demur  to  the  statement :  "  His  example  is  more  cogent  when 
regarded  as  that  of  Incarnate  Deity,  than  when  regarded  as 
that  of  God-inspired  man." 

But  this  is  not  all.  When  the  extremity  of  our  Lord's  Self- 
abasement,  the  magnitude  of  His  Self-sacrifice,  and  the  infin 
ity  of  the  love  which  that  Self-sacrifice  discloses,  are  inferred 
from  the  dogma  of  His  Godhead,  we  are  reminded  of  difficul 
ties  with  which  the  superficial  pleadings  of  Orthodoxy  quite 
fail  to  grapple.  The  blessedness  of  Deity  is  not  susceptible 
of  decrease ;  and,  as  we  have  seen,  Mr.  Liddon  himself  assumes 
that  in  one  sphere  of  existence  Jesus  was  All-blessed,  while  in 
another  He  was  agonized.  The  humiliation  and  Self-sacrifice 
were,  therefore,  accomplished  in  the  human  sphere  ;  and  even 
if  we  pass  over  the  tremendous  paradox  involved  in  supposing 
the  impersonal  portion  of  our  Lord's  complete  Being  to  have 
been,  during  any  sort  of  action  or  endurance,  divorced  from  the 
Infinite  attributes  of  the  Personal,  we  must  yet  admit  that 
the  Humanity  was  grasped  and  directed  by  the  Deity,  with  a 
perfect  foresight  of  all  future  events.  And  the  foreseen  con 
sequences  of  briefly  transient  Self-humiliation  and  suffering 
were,  to  the  human  side  of  Christ's  existence,  the  loftiest 
exaltation  and  everlasting  felicity.  If,  according  to  Mr.  Lid- 
don's  assumption,  the  two  Natures,  though  united  in  a  single 
Person,  can  have  diverse  fields  of  experience,  then,  with  the 
inaugmentable  bliss  of  Deity,  has  been  joined  a  perfectly  beati 
fied  Humanity.  And  this  gainful  consummation  was  reached 
through  processes  wherein  the  Manhood  was  unceasingly 
steered  and  controlled  by  a  Divine  Person,  incapable  of  the 
ignorance,  the  misgivings,  the  trusting  reliance,  and  the  hope 
which  impart  depth  and  reality  to  human  self-sacrifice  in  its 
relations  to  God  and  man. 

Mr.  Liddon  rightly  declares  :  "  The  warmth  of  the  spirit  of 
love  varies  with  the  felt  greatness  of  the  sacrifice  which  ex 
presses  it,  arid  which  is  its  life."  And,  he  reveals  the  strength 
of  very  sincere  prepossession,  when  he  adds,  "  Therefore  the 


ON   HIS    SELF-SACRIFICE.  381 

love  of  the  Divine  Christ  is  infinite.  '  He  loved  me,'  says 
an  Apostle,  'and  gave  Himself  for  me'  (Gal.  ii.  20).  The 
'Self  which  He  gave  for  man  was  none  other  than  the 
Infinite  God :  the  reality  of  Christ's  Godhead  is  the  truth 
which  can  alone  measure  the  greatness  of  His  love" 
(p.  495). 

The  infinite  perfections  of  the  Most  High  are  not,  indeed, 
incompatible  with  love,  for  love  is  their  chief  ingredient,  but 
they  are,  by  all  rational  conception,  incompatible  with  the 
experiences  which  constitute  human  self-sacrifice.  The  com 
position  of  the  Orthodox  Christ  reduces  His  Sacrifice  of  Self 
to  a  minimum.  When  Mr.  Liddon  aimies  :  "  Christians  have 

G 

measured  the  love  of  Jesus  Christ  as  man  measures  all  love, 
by  observing  the  degree  in  which  it  involves  the  gift  of  self: 
the  Self  which  Christ  gave  was  none  other  than  the  Infinite 
God,"  —  he  seems  hovering  on  the  verge  of  the  silly  verbal 
quibble,  "every  thing  done  by  an  Infinite  Being  is  in 
finite." 

The  reasoning  of  the  most  plausible  rhetorician,  in  support 
of  the  assertion  that  Christian  virtues  are  in  some  specific 
sense  effects  of  faith  in  Christ's  Deity,  cannot  be  otherwise 
than  unsatisfactory,  and  will  have  no  weight  with  men  who 
believe  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  to  have  been  produced  and  sent 
by  the  One  God  and  Father,  the  Only  True  God.  Our  Lord's 
precepts,  and  our  Lord's  example,  have,  on  valid  grounds  of 
reason  as  well  as  moral  feeling,  great  power,  if  He  is  acknowl 
edged  to  be  the  elect  Revealer  of  the  Divine  diameter  and 
purposes ;  the  Messenger  and  Image  of  the  Blessed  and  only 
Potentate,  the  Invisible  God.  If  in  the  Man  Christ  Jesus 
men  behold  the  light  and  glory  of  a  moral  manifestation  of 
God,  the  mirror  on  which  the  brightness  of  the  Fathers  glory 
falls,  then  the  teaching  and  the  pattern  which  Christ  has  left 
us  will  not  be  deficient  in  force  and  fruit-fulness.  The  idea 
that  He  is  Personally  the  Infinite  God  may  seem  to  add 
force  and  intensity  to  His  example,  but  it  will  do  so  only  by 
causing  us  to  transfer  a  portion  of  our  highest  devotional 
affections  from  the  Father.  The  sum  total  of  emotional 


382  DANGER   OF   DIVIDED   LOVE    AND   WORSHIP. 

religious  energy  will  not  be  increased,  but  differently  dis 
tributed,  and  disorganizing  germs  of  intellectual  confusion 
will  be  implanted. 

Dissentients  from  the  Church's  dogma  would,  from  their 
point  of  view,  make  short  work  of  the  argument,  that  love  to 
God  is  enlarged  by  the  doctrine  Mr.  Liddon  advocates.  They 
would  declare  the  heart's  supreme  love  and  worship  are 
divided  and  impoverished,  when  the  One  Infinitely  Perfect 
and  Absorbing  Object  is  verbally  split  up  into  two  or  more 
mysterious  Subsistences,  each  Personally  God,  and  yet  to 
gether  only  one  God.  They  would  aver  the  Church  is  but 
too  surely  a  loser,  in  the  depth  and  constancy  of  spiritual, 
truthful  worship,  when  her  faith,  trust,  love,  and  devotional 
service  are  as  much,  and  in  the  same  sense,  given  to  the 
Begotten  and  Incarnate  Son,  as  to  the  Unbegotten  and  In 
finite  Father. 

And  they  would  reply  to  Mr.  Liddon's  inquiry  —  "  What 
is  the  fountain  head  of  the  many  blessed  and  practical  results 
of  Christian  civilization  and  Christian  charity,  but  the  truth 
of  His  Divinity,  Who  has  kindled  man  into  charity  by  giving 
Himself  for  man  ?  "  —  by  recounting  results  of  a  widely  dif 
ferent  kind,  which  have  been  most  intimately  associated  writh 
the  manifested  life  of  the  Christian  Church.  There  are  very 
prominent  facts  in  the  Church's  history,  which  certainly  do 
not  point  to  the  conclusion  that  the  vital  power  of  Chris 
tianity  in  the  production  of  Christian  graces  has  been  pro 
moted  by  the  Church's  unflagging  insistence  on  the  particular 
dogma  which  is  Mr.  Liddon's  theme.  The  tendency  to  arro 
gate  a  tyrannous  dominion  over  men's  faith  and  consciences 
has  been  nowhere  more,  rank  and  vigorous  than  in  the 
Sacerdotal  Hierarchy  by  whom  the  tenet  of  Christ's  Deity 
has  been  most  jealously  proclaimed  and  fostered.  Meekness, 
humbleness  of  mind,  "  the  bearing  of  a  little  child  (St.  Matt, 
xviii.  3),  that  true  note  of  predestined  nobility  in  the  King 
dom  of  Heaven,"  have  never  been,  from  the  fourth  century  to 
the  nineteenth,  distinguishing  virtues  of  Orthodox  Eccle 
siastics —  the  dauntless  champions  of  the  dogmatic  Faith. 


WHAT    HAS    PROMOTED    CHRISTIAN    CHARITY  ?  383 

Neither  has  Christlike  charity  been  remarkably  displayed  in 
conjunction  with  a  scrupulous  holding  of  Nicene  and  Atha- 
nasian  definitions.  Ferocious  cruelty,  unsurpassed  in  the 
annals  of  heathenism ;  unpitying,  savage,  deliberate  atroci 
ties,  were  long  and  largely  perpetrated  with  the  sanction, 
and  mostly  at  the  instigation,  of  the  Church's  Hierarchy,  in 
the  name  of  that  religion  which  inscribed  Christ's  Godhead 
on  its  banner.  And  the  sentiments  which  gave  birth  to  the 
horrors  of  individual  torturings  and  wholesale  butcheries 
were  not  subjugated  by  "  the  moral  results  of  Calvary,  which 
are  what  they  are,  because  Christ  is  God."  They  were  not 
abated  or  banished,  because  Christian  faith  deduced  lessons 
of  love  from  "the  charity  of  the  Redeemer,  which  is  infinite 
because  the  Redeemer  is  Divine,"  but  because  the  experi 
enced  failure  of  fiendish  barbarity  to  extirpate  heresy  induced 
prudent  hesitation,  and  won  a  hearing  for  the  voice  of  natural 
tenderness,  and  the  general  teachings  of  Christian  brotherhood 
and  compassion  ;  and  even  now,  so  far  as  modern  civilization 
permits  it  to  emerge,  the  persecuting  spirit  is  seen  to  cling 
to  earnest  faith  in  Christ's  Deity ;  and  suspicion  is  never  so 
keen-scented,  denunciation  never  so  bitter,  opposition  never 
so  relentless,  resentment  never  so  fierce,  as  when  the  delicate, 
fragile,  and  incomprehensible  definitions  by  which  the  Church 
depicts  the  internal  relations,  constitution,  and  economical 
distribution  of  the  Uncreated  Nature,  are  imagined  to  be 
traversed.  Our  Lord's  saying,  "I  came  not  to  send  peace, 
but  a  sword :  I  came  to  set  men  at  variance,"  referred  to  the 
resistance  which  Christianity  would  provoke  among  Jews 
and  heathens  ;  but  believers  in  His  Deity  have  labored  with 
no  small  amount  of  success,  to  make  the  saying  intensely  ap 
plicable  to  the  demeanor  of  Christians  towards  each  other. 

"  The  Divinity  of  God's  Own  Son,  freely  given  for  us  sin 
ners  to  suffer  and  to  die,  is  the  very  heart  of  our  Christian 
faith.  It  cannot  be  denied  without  tearing  out  the  vitals  of 
a  living  Christianity"  (p.  497).  This  dashing  statement  will 
have  no  more  weight  with  thinkers  than  the  baseless  asser 
tion —  "  Apostles,  differing  in  much  besides,  were  made  one 


SS4  HOW   FAR   DOES    PRACTICAL    CHRISTIANITY 

by  faith  in  Christ's  Divinity,  and  in  the  truths  which  are 
bound  up  with  it "  •  —  will  have  with  candid  searchers  of  the 
New  Testament  Scriptures.  The  statement  may  indeed  be 
true,  if  by  "  a  living  Christianity "  is  meant  the  system  of 
dogmas  wrapt  by  the  Church  Catholic  around  the  essential 
truths  which  Christ  and  His  Apostles  taught;  but  if,  by  a 
living  Christianity,  is  meant  the  faith  which  works  by  love  to 
God,  and  love  to  our  neighbor,  we  cannot  easily  understand 
howT  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  Deity  increases  its  efficacy. 
Which  of  the  great  leading  conceptions,  demanded  by  the 
religious  sentiments,  hangs  upon  the  theory  that  Jesus  Christ, 
as  well  as  our  Heavenly  Father,  is  Almighty  God?  Do 
God's  existence,  and  His  care  for  man  ?  Does  a  future  life, 
attended  with  recompenses  corresponding  to  real  deserv- 
ings  and  character?  Does  our  Maker's  Fatherly  compassion, 
and  willingness  to  forgive  the  transgressions  of  His  erring  and 
repentant  creatures?  Is  not  belief  in  One  Personal  God  and 
Father  sufficient  to  kindle  the  brightest  flames  of  morally 
intelligent  affection,  and  to  quicken,  and  raise  to  the  highest 
pitch,  every  pious  emotion  ?  Is  not  the  consciousness  of  Our 
Father's  near  and  dear  Presence,  —  that  which  feeds  the 
heart  with  the  strongest  motives  to  holiness,  —  that  which 
takes  a  mighty  hold  on  the  emotional  side  of  our  nature,  and 
is  ratified  and  re-enforced  by  the  intellectual?  The  intro 
duction  of  a  second,  Personally  distinct  Form  of  Godhead 
neither  facilitates,  nor  deepens,  the  play  of  the  indispensable 
spiritual  forces,  —  dependence,  love,  trust,  conviction  of  sin, 
and  a  sense  of  the  need  for  pardoning  and  assisting  grace. 
Loving  trust  in  an  infinitely  Wise,  Holy,  and  Kind  Father  — 
the  Father  Whom  Jesus  and  His  Apostles  proclaim  — is  the 
prime  inward  spring  of  Christian  holiness;  and  from  this 
trust  the  dogma  of  Christ's  Co-equal  Deity  is  in  theory  cal 
culated  to  detract,  by  producing  in  our  minds  the  partition 
of  endearing  Attributes,  and  thereby  dimming  the  lustre  of 
the  Father's  Moral  Glory.  If  we  try  to  understand  our 
words,  and  realize  our  conceptions,  the  notion  of  a  Plurality 
of  Persons  in  the  Divine  Nature  becomes  either  an  unprofit- 


DEPEND    UPON    FAITH  IN    CHRIST'S    DEITY  ?  385 

able  and  disconcerting  repetition  of  One  and  the  Same  God, 
or  a  presentation  of  more  Gods  than  One,  with  claims  more 
or  less  diverse.  Submissive,  unquestioning  reliance  on  au 
thority  is  necessary,  to  shelter  the  notion  from  the  blight 
of  rational  inferences  decidedly  adverse  to  real  and  funda 
mental  Monotheism. 


25 


CHAPTER   XIII. 

The  doctrine  defended  by  Mr.  Liddon  is,  wholly  and  necessarily,  outside 
the  sphere  of  reason.  —  Even  the  explicit  statements  of  the  Creeds 
cannot  Le  rationally  harmonized,  and  are  fitted  for  a  blindly  confiding, 
rather  than  a  reflective  and  intelligent  reception.  —  Utter  insuffi 
ciency  of  the  supposed  Scriptural  testimony  for  Christ's  Godhead ; 
and  recapitulation  of  the  adverse  testimony.  —  Mistaken  impressions 
kept  up  by  false  statements  in  Commentaries,  Sermons,  &c.  —  The 
Church's  teaching  cannot  be  fully  appropriated  without  an  acknowl 
edgment  of  the  Church's  paramount  authority.  —  This  fact  appears 
to  have  been  at  times  forgotten  even  by  great  Fathers  in  the 
Church.  —  Necessity  for  an  explicitly  speaking  Supreme  Tribunal.  — 
The  inevitable  outcome  of  Protestant  principle.  —  Conclusion. 

I  HAVE  now  examined  in  detail  the  strength  of  Mr.  Liddon's 
argument  from  Scripture,  and  trust  I  may  have  enabled  my 
readers  duly  to  estimate  the  worth  of  the  reasonings  on 
which  he  relies.  To  me  those  reasonings  appear  to  be  some 
times  absurd,  often  really,  however  unconsciously,  sophistical, 
and  always  insufficient.  The  whole  structure  of  the  Lectures, 
so  far  as  they  are  an  appeal  of  reason  to  Holy  Scripture  (and 
all  exposition  not  avowedly  based  on  the  Church's  supreme 
authority  must  be  such  an  appeal),  rests  upon  untenable 
ground,  and  exposes  to  inevitable  capture  the  citadel  of 
Ecclesiastical  Faith.  Whenever  the  primary  doctrine  of 
God's  Unity  is  maintained,  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  Deity  is 
outside  the  sphere  of  reason,  and,  if  true,  is  emphatically  and 
solely  a  disclosure  of  Revelation.  The  terms  in  which  the 
doctrines  are  conjointly  stated  become,  by  a  hard  necessity, 
either  meaningless,  or  irrational  and  conflicting.  This  fact 
does  not,  for  any  large  class  of  minds,  attest  the  Deity  of 
Christ  to  be  revealed  from  Above ;  but  it,  at  least,  attests  the 
proclamation  of  His  Deity  to  be  addressed  to  trustful,  unques 
tioning  faith.  How  imperative  is  the  need  for  intellectual 


DEFECTIVENESS   OF   THE   NICENE  CREED.  387 

abeyance  and  submission  may  be  seen  in  the  circumstance 
that  even  the  Creeds  wherein  the  Church  most  explicitly  sets 
forth  her  teaching  are  not  reasonably  reconcilable  Avith  each 
other.  If  the  Athanasian  Symbol  conveys  the  Church's  riper 
wisdom,  and  more  thorough  analysis  of  the  One  Infinite  Self- 
subsisting  Nature,  then  that  drawn  up  by  the  Councils  of 
Nice  and  Constantinople  is  manifestly  defective,  if  not  abso 
lutely  heretical.  The  Symbol  of  Nice  and  Constantinople 
presents  to  our  faith  One  God,  the  Father  Almighty,  and,  in 
addition,  a  Begotten  God  of  the  Self-same  Substance,  —  Very 
God,  of  or  from  Very  God.  Clearly,  therefore,  in  the  con 
ception  which  the  Church's  words  compel,  if  the  Father  is 
God,  and  the  Son  is  God,  there  are  two  Gods.  The  Father 
is,  as  the  Father  Almighty,  One  God ;  and  the  Son  —  Whose 
eternity  is  dubiously  predicated  in  the  clause,  begotten  before 
all  the  ages  —  is  a  second  God.  There  is  no  intimation  that 
One  God  means  One  Indivisible  Self-existing  Essence,  within 
Which  are  enfolded  different  Persons,  Who  severally  have 
One  Divinity,  equal  Glory,  and  Co-eternal  Majesty. 

The  phrases  Begotten  and  Only-begotten  are  robbed  of  all 
cognizable  import,  when  we  are  bound  to  reconcile  them  with 
+he  Son's  possession  of  unabridged  everlasting  Deity.  With 
the  concession  of  derivation  in  any  actual  sense,  the  distinc 
tive  quality  of  true  Godhead,  Self-existence,  vanishes,  and  a 
gulf  of  severance,  impassable  by  rational  thought,  yawns 
between  the  derived  glory  of  the  Son,  and  the  underived 
Majesty  of  the  Father.  And,  in  another  particular,  the 
Nicene  Creed  itself,  if  it  has  not  the  escort  of  a  despotic 
Commentary,  must  be  confessed,  in  spite  of  its  definitions, 
to  imply  with  clearness  the  Son's  inferiority.  The  creation 
of  all  visible  and  invisible  things  is  attributed  to  the  One 
God  the  Father  Almighty.  The  organizing  action  of  the 
Only-begotten  Son,  through  or  by  means  of  Whom  all  things 
were  made,  must  therefore  have  been  instrumental  and  de 
puted.  He  was  not  the  Coequal  Partner,  but  the  Agent  of 
the  One  God ;  for,  if  the  Son  created  by  His  own  inherent 
might,  the  Omnipotent  Father  was  not  the  Maker  of  all 


388  PANTHEISM    AND    PROTESTANT   MONOTHEISM. 

things.  The  language  of  the  Creed,  as  regards  creation,  can 
not  be  harmonized  without  an  acknowledgment  of  the  Son's 
subordination,  servitorship,  and  mere  agency.  The  affirma 
tion,  Very  God  from  Very  God,  is  quite  inadequate  rationally 
to  annul  this  fatal  implication  of  vast  inferiority,  unless  we 
introduce  direct  antagonism  to  the  Creed's  opening  clause, 
and  also  cut  down  to  nothing  the  meaning  of  the  "  Genera 
tion  "  which  took  place  before  all  the  ages.  Nor  are  the 
renowned  and  sagacious  words,  of  the  same  Substance  with 
the  Father,  competent,  from  a  philosophical  point  of  view, 
to  the  task  for  which  they  were  devised.  Since  things 
visible  and  invisible  come  forth  from  the  One  Fountain  of 
Unoriginated  Being,  are  they  not  all  of  one  Substance  with 
the  Father?  They  may  manifest  Him,  and  exist  by  His 
presence  and  energy,  in  differing  modes  and  degrees,  but  of 
what  other  Substance  than  His  can  they  be?  Where  is 
there  any  other  Substance  ?  To  devout  and  reflective  minds, 
one  inscrutable  feature  in  the  mystery  of  the  Self-existent 
Creator  is  the  union  of  universally  diffused,  upholding  Pres 
ence  with  personal  attributes.  An  adoring  and  philosophical 
faith  combines  Pantheism  with  a  belief  in  a  Personal  God. 
The  combination  is  confessedly  paradoxical,  but  it  follows 
the  direction  given  by  lines  of  rational  indication,  and  does 
not  contravene  reason,  though  its  ultimate  statement  is  not 
within  reason's  boundary.  In  propositions  relating  to  the 
Divine  Nature  we  can  scarcely  hope  to  attain  certitude,  or 
to  avoid  paradox,  but  we  ought  to  avoid  baseless,  discordant, 
fanciful  specifications.  When  we  have  forsaken  the  ground 
of  Ecclesiastical  authority,  we  act  more  reverently  in  con 
fessing  our  ignorance  than  in  contradicting  ourselves,  and 
uttering  sounds  without  sense.  Piously  inquisitive  thought, 
uninstructed  by  infallible  revelation,  will  find  no  pretext  for 
conceiving  the  Divine  Nature  to  consist  of  three  Persons, 
Each  of  Whom  is  by  Himself  God,  and  Who,  nevertheless, 
are  together  only  One  God  ;  but  will  discern  inducements  of 
great  probability  for  the  faith  that,  in  the  Universe,  the 
Divine  Substance  is  diffused  and  displayed,  while  neverthe- 


DIFFERENCES   OF   THE    CREEDS.  389 

less  the  One  God  has  a  Personal  Subsistence  and  Attributes 
apart  from  the  Universe.  Protestant  Monotheism,  retaining 
the  consecrated  metaphor  of  dogmatic  theology,  has  declared 
by  the  pen  of  one  of  its  ablest  representatives :  "  For  the 
God  of  the  Trinity  must  be  substituted  the  one  God,  above 
and  within  the  world,  filling  the  immensity  of  time  and 
space  with  the  inexhaustible  riches  of  His  power,  whose  eter 
nal  Word  is  the  Universe  —  the  revelation  of  His  thoughts, 
the  expression  of  His  wisdom "  (Reville,  On  the  Deity  of 
Christ}. 

The  Church's  insight  was  deeper  at  the  date  of  the  Atha- 
nasian,  than  at  the  date  of  the  Nicene  Creed,  and  she  beheld 
more  vividly  the  imminent  peril  of  dividing  the  Substance 
in  the  intricate  process  of  distinguishing  the  Persons  ;  but, 
owing  to  the  imperfection  of  human  language,  her  ability  of 
expression  could  not  keep  pace  with  her  inspired  penetration, 
and  so,  in  her  last  analysis  of  God,  there  is,  for  mere  reason, 
inconsistency,  whatever  nutriment  there  may  be  for  humble 
faith.  Through  the  Symbol  called  Athanasian,  the  Church 
asserts  concerning  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost, 
that  each  Person  must  be  acknowledged  to  be,  by  himself, 
both  God  and  Lord,  Uncreated,  Infinite,  Eternal,  Almighty, 
and  yet  They  are  not  three  Uncreated,  Infinite,  Eternal, 
and  Almighty  Beings,  but  One  Almighty.  To  the  intellect, 
this  phraseology  is  either  totally  unintelligible  or  flatly  self- 
contradictory.  If  Person  signifies  any  thing,  One  is  mean 
ingless  :  if  the  Unity  of  God  is  held  fast,  Person  loses  all 
significance.  Sameness  of  Nature  there  may  be  in  different 
individuals,  but  Oneness  of  Being  is  singleness  of  Person. 
If  both  the  Unity,  and  the  separate  Personality  are  roundly 
affirmed,  the  affirmation  can  evoke  nothing  but  conceptions 
diametrically  opposed,  and  mutually  exclusive.  Manifesta 
tion,  pervasion,  indwelling,  and  influence  locally  concentrated 
or  universally  diffused,  differ  widely  from  multiplied  Person 
ality. 

Assuming  Eternity,  and  Independent  Unoriginated  Exist 
ence,  to  be  inalienable  Attributes  of  God,  the  Creed  of  Nicaea 


390    USE  OF  REASON  SUBVERSIVE  OF  ORTHODOXY. 

and  Constantinople  either  falls  short  in  defining  Christ's  God 
head,  or  is  ditheistic.  The  Athanasian  Creed,  unless  its  defi 
nitions  of  the  Divine  Nature  are  wholly  shorn  of  sense,  is 
self-contradictory.  To  the  vision  of  Ecclesiastical  credence, 
both  Creeds  may  be  perfectly  harmonious,  and  both  lofty 
achievements  of  illuminated  wisdom,  but  I  speak  from  the 
inferior  ground  of  merely  rational  inspection.  The  Creed 
known  as  the  Apostles\  though  it  has  but  slender  claims  to 
Apostolic  parentage,  yet  exhibits,  in  relation  to  God  and  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  a  confession  that  satisfied  the  demands  of 
Ante-Mcene  times,  but  no  reasonable  exposition  can  make  it 
cover  the  dogma  of  Christ's  Deity.  The  Anglican  Church, 
indeed  (see  Catechism),  teaches  us  to  learn  from  it  faith  in 
God  the  8on,  and  in  God-  the  Holy  Ghost /  but  she  does  so, 
only  by  making  it  mean  what  it  does  not  say,  thus  honoring 
the  Creed  with  the  mode  of  interpretation  applied  to  inspired 
writings.  Men  are  sometimes  told  to  take  the  Creed  as  their 
compass  in  the  study  of  the  Bible ;  but,  when  this  sage  advice 
is  given,  we  must  expect  the  inquiry,  "  which  Creed  ? "  for 
in  delineating  Christ's  Person  the  three  Creeds  carry  us  to 
very  different  lengths,  and  do  not  run  in  precisely  the  same 
direction. 

The  Bible  and  the  Creeds  are  thoroughly  dissimilar  in 
composition,  yet  the  principle  of  rational  interpretation  is 
almost  as  dangerous  in  its  application  to  the  one  as  to  the 
other.  The  notion,  that  formulas  offered  to  Christian  faith 
are  at  the  same  time  offered  to  the  intelligence  of  Christians, 
is  in  its  very  nature  disintegrating,  and  subversive  of  Ortho 
doxy.  In  secular  and  temporal  concerns,  truth  requires  that 
words  should  closely  correspond  to  thoughts,  but  in  the 
higher  concerns  of  religion  and  eternity  this  correspondence 
should  not  be  looked  for;  and  we  walk  more  humbly  and 
securely  in  the  traditional  tracks  when  we  portray  the  Ador 
able,  Uncreated  Nature  by  language  into  which  consistent 
thoughts  cannot  be  put.  The  subject  is,  doubtless,  impene 
trably  mysterious,  and  the  human  intellect  quite  unable  ade 
quately  to  comprehend  the  Form  of  Self-existent  Being;  but 


THE   CREEDS    DO    NOT   AID    THE   UNDERSTANDING.       891 

this  inability,  while  it  forbids  the  uninspired  intellect  to  frame 
definitions,  does  not  forbid  the  examination  of  definitions, 
since  they  must  be  to  some  extent  the  fruits  of  the  intellect's 
exercise,  and,  if  not  examples  of  human  error,  are  instances 
of  Divine  condescension  employing  the  very  imperfect  ma 
chinery  of  human  parlance  and  capacity.  From  whatever 
source,  therefore,  the  Church's  knowledge  proceeds,  if  she 
cannot  intelligibly  express  the  revelation  intrusted  to  her 
keeping,  her  demand  must  be  for  reliance  upon  herself,  for 
a  confiding  and  blindly  acquiescent,  as  distinguished  from  a 
reflective  and  intelligent,  acceptance  of  her  tenets. 

The  Creeds,  though  they  declare  the  Church's  judgment, 
do  nothing  towards  unriddling  the  co-existence  of  Essential 
Unity  and  Personal  Plurality.  The  paradox  remains  un 
solved,  because  Plurality  of  Personal  Being  is  the  negation 
of  Unity,  and  Unity  the  negation  of  Plurality.  If  reason  be 
permitted  to  enter  the  field,  one-half  of  the  Church's  defi 
nition  falls  immediately.  The  analogies  to  which  zealous 
faith  and  inflexible  prejudice  have  had  recourse,  —  the  tripar 
tite  nature  of  man,  body,  soul,  and  spirit,  —  the  triple  energies 
of  the  human  mind,  intelligence,  love,  and  will,  and  the  three 
fold  qualities  of  the  Sun,  its  substance,  light,  and  heat,  are 
obviously  pointless.  The  conjunction  of  differing  parts,  pow 
ers,  affections,  and  efficiencies,  in  one  complex  Being,  bears 
no  true  illustrative  analogy  to  the  concomitance  of  distinct, 
co-equal,  and  severally  complete  Persons  in  One  Substance. 

Definitions  external  to  the  Canon  of  Scripture  have  not 
tended  to  assist  in  bringing  the  subject  within  the  apprehen 
sion  of  reason.  And  the  detailed  investigation  of  Mr.  Lid- 
don's  argument  has  impressed  upon  my  mind  a  reluctant 
persuasion,  that  Scripture  clearly  proclaims  the  Almighty  to 
be,  in  the  intelligible,  exclusive  sense,  One  Individual  Personal 
Being.  The  mode  of  His  Existence,  and  the  exercise  of 
His  Omnipotent,  Omnipresent  Energy,  are  beyond  the  grasp 
of  finite  understandings ;  but  absolute  Personal  Unity  is  the 
conception  of  His  Nature  which  reason  approves,  and  the 
only  conception  which  the  Bible,  reasonably  interpreted,  sets 


392  THE   TESTIMONY   OF   SCRIPTURE    NOT    ONLY 

forth.  The  supposed  Scriptural  evidence  for  Christ's  God 
head  crumbles  vexingly  away  as  the  meaning  of  text  after 
text  is  explored.  Scarcely  a  single  fragment  wears  a  respect 
able  look,  and  the  whole  fabric  is  miserably  weak,  and  with 
out  cohesion. 

The  plain  fact  is,  —  with  regard  to  that  doctrine  of  Christ's 
Person  which  the  two  later  of  the  three  Creeds  embody,  the 
Bible  has  been  more  talked  about  than  really  consulted.  The 
conscientious  effort  to  reach  the  original  meaning  and  occupy 
the  Sacred  Writers'  point  of  view,  the  calm  and  unbiassed 
investigation  demanded  by  Protestant  principle,  have  been 
very  rarely  bestowed  upon  the  Book  which  Orthodox  Prot 
estants  so  vauntingly  declare  to  be  the  Divine  Code  of  their 
Faith.  Nicene  and  Athanasian  theologies  have  been  taken 
for  granted,  and,  after  a  fashion  illustrated,  not  searchingly 
weighed  and  examined  by  the  balance  and  the  light  which 
the  venerated  Volume  supplies ;  and  so  the  majority  of 
Protestants  have  gone  on  repeating  the  dogma  of  a  plurality 
of  Persons  in  the  One  Godhead,  contentedly  ignorant  that 
rational  investigation  demonstrates  the  dogma  to  have  been 
always  outside  and  beyond  Scripture,  —  outside  and  beyond 
the  Old  Testament  Canon,  and  again  outside  and  beyond  the 
New.  I  do  not  deny  that  God  may,  in  His  own  way,  have 
revealed  the  dogma ;  but  I  do  deny  He  has  revealed  it  in  a 
way  which  their  fundamental  principle  enables  Protestants 
to  recognize. 

The  Old  Testament  furnishes  nothing  to  set  over  against 
its  own  repeated,  explicit,  and  emphatic  annunciations  that 
God  is  One  Being  ;  and  only  by  neglecting  contexts,  forget 
ting  original  senses,  and  ignoring  obvious  characteristics  of 
Eastern  thought  and  diction,  can  even  a  semblance  of  exposi 
tion  be  constructed  for  the  detention  of  minds  trained  from 
childhood  to  believe,  and  not  to  inquire.  In  the  New  Testa 
ment,  the  Great  Speaker,  Who  is  in  the  Church's  preaching 
Very  God  veiled  in  Humanity,  gives  no  hint  of  His  own 
boundless  Uncreated  Greatness.  He  claims,  indeed,  intimate 
communion  with,  and  mission  from,  the  Father — His  Father 


INSUFFICIENT    BUT    ADVERSE    TO    THE    CREEDS.          393 

and  our  Father,  His  God  and  our  God,  Whom  He  also 
names  the  Only  God,  and  the  Only  True  God ;  but  He  never 
approaches  an  affirmation  that  He  is  internal  to  the  Self- 
subsisting  Nature,  and,  by  independent  necessity  of  Being, 
the  Father's  Co-equal  Partner.  His  language  is  always  that 
of  filial  dependence,  filial  love ;  and  the  highest  Self-asser 
tions  attributed  to  Him  rise  no  higher  than  announcements 
of  might  and  gifts,  office  and  dignity,  bestowed  by  the 
Father.  That  He  designed  any  words  of  His  own  to  reveal 
His  possession  of  Godhead,  or  to  identify  Himself  with  the 
One  perfectly  Good  God  Whom  He  enjoins  us  to  love  with 
all  our  heart,  and  soul,  and  strength,  is  a  conjecture  which, 
to  the  unaided  eye  of  reason,  must  appear  violently  arbitrary 
and  improbable.  If  we  argue  from  inferences  suggested  by 
His  words,  we  are  confronted,  at  every  page,  with  natural 
and  direct  implications  adverse  to  the  Church's  dogma,  while 
the  whole  pleading  in  favor*  of  the  dogma  reposes  upon 
unnatural  and  forced  deductions  and  senses,  not  read  in,  but 
into,  a  few  expressions  whose  ambiguity  invites  theological 
manipulation. 

And  the  Evangelical  historians,  when  speaking  in  their 
own  persons,  show  no  perception  that  the  Teacher  sent  from 
God,  Who  is  the  subject  of  their  narratives,  is  God,  or  God's 
Equal.  The  metaphysically  speculative  introduction  to  the 
Fourth  Gospel  does  not  identify  the  Word  and  the  God  with 
Whom  the  Word  was ;  and  by  saying  the  Word  was  in  the 
beginning  does  not  adequately  affirm  the  Word's  Eternity. 
The  Greek,  although  it  twice  asserts  the  presence  of  the 
Logos  with  the  God,  does  not  assert  the  Logos  was  the  God ; 
and  the  wording  of  verses  1  and  2  strongly  favors,  if  it  does 
not  quite  establish,  the  surmise  that,  in  ascribing  Divinity  to 
the  Logos,  the  Article  was  designedly  omitted,  to  mark  a 
distinction  in  sense.  The  whole  tenor  of  the  last  Gospel, 
moreover  (unless  inspiration  destroys  consistency),  is  at 
variance  with  the  supposition  of  a  purpose  on  the  writer's 
part  to  put  God  and  Jesus  Christ  in  the  same  rank.  Jesus 
is  pre-existent,  superhuman,  highly  exalted,  and  in  most  near 


394  THE   TESTIMONY   OF    SCRIPTURE    NOT   ONLY 

and  privileged  fellowship  with  the  Father,  but  is  always  dis 
tinctly  dependent  upon  and  beneath  the  Father ;  and  we  are 
rationally  bound  to  conclude  the  Evangelist's  conception  of 
Christ  was  in  easy  unison  with  the  testimony  which  He 
makes  Christ  Himself  bear  respecting  the  Father's  superior 
greatness  and  exclusive  Deity. 

The  authors  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  the  Epistles,  and 
the  Apocalypse,  can,  by  no  variations  of  intelligent  or  equi 
table  interpretation,  be  made  to  put  Jesus,  the  Son  Whom 
God  has  raised  and  glorified,  on  a  parity  with  God  in  Nature 
and  underived  Majesty.  The  tone  of  each  document  singly, 
and  the  force  of  all  combined,  forbid  the  idea  that,  in  the 
writers'  thoughts,  Jesus  occupied  the  place  of  Almighty  God. 
Rom.  ix.  5,  Tit.  ii.  13,  1  John  v.  20,  are  not,  by  grammatical 
necessity,  descriptions  of  Christ,  and,  by  every  guide  but 
ambiguity  of  construction,  are  shown  to  be  descriptions  of 
the  One  God,  our  Father.  Tne  clamorous  adherence  to  a 
possible,  but  demonstrably  improbable  application  of  the 
debated  expressions  in  these  texts,  betrays  the  desperate 
straits  into  which  Orthodox  Protestant  exposition  has  fallen. 

But  not  only  is  there,  throughout  the  New  Testament,  an 
absence  of  indications  which  we  are  by  the  rules  of  rational 
evidence  bound  to  expect,  not  only  do  the  men  who  are  pre 
sumed  to  have  been  intrusted  with  a  new  and  most  moment 
ous  revelation  withhold  that  revelation,  but  they  also  employ 
language  which  must,  to  Monotheists  in  every  age,  be  charged 
with  obstructive  and  hostile  suggestions.  In  fearlessness, 
earnestness,  and  intellectual  grasp,  St.  Paul  was  not  a  whit 
behind  the  chiefest  Apostle,  and  yet,  while  lie  constantly 
employs  the  Name  God,  he  never  once  gives  the  Name  to 
Jesus  Christ,  but  distinguishes  Him  from  God,  in  sentences 
of  pointed  precision,  capable  of  carrying  but  one  meaning  to 
minds  not  filled  with  undoubting  assurance  that  Jesus  Christ 
is  God.  He  lays  down  as  axioms  of  the  Faith :  there  is  no 
God  but  One ;  to  Christians,  there  is  One  God,  the  Father, 
and  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  there  is  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one 
baptism,  One  God  and  Father  of  all ;  there  is  One  God,  and 


INSUFFICIENT    BUT    ADVERSE    TO    THE    CREEDS.        395 

one  Mediator  between  God  and  men,  the  Mem  Christ  Jesus. 
He  calls  God  the  Only  God ;  the  Only  Wise  God;  the 
Messed  and  Only  Potentate ;  the  God  and  Father  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.  If  in  inspired,  no  less  than  H  uninspired 
men,  the  mouth  speaks  from  the  abundance  of  the  heart ;  if 
language  has  any  intrinsic  connection  with  opinions  and 
thoughts,  St.  Paul  knew  no  God  but  the  One  Almighty 
Father,  the  God  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Father  of 
Glory.  Against  his  witness  for  the  real  Personal  Unity  of 
God,  it  is  vain  to  erect  the  sham  testimony  composed  of 
exorbitant  deductions  from  isolated,  vague,  and  opaque 
phrases.  At  the  bar  of  human  intelligence,  no  writer  can  be 
held  to  imply,  through  the  merely  possible,  or  less  probable 
meanings  of  obscure,  or  anibiguous,  or  metaphorical  state 
ments,  opinions  which  he  never  explicitly  avows,  and  seems 
explicitly  to  exclude.  Even  in  the  Philippian  and  Colossian 
Epistles  (assuming  their  present  Text  to  be  in  every  clause 
Apostolic),  there  is  a  studied  avoidance  of  the  open  straight 
forward  method  of  calling  Christ  God,  and  an  attribution  to 
Him  of  gifts,  glory,  and  official  exaltation  from  God,  which 
persuasively  intimate  that,  when  Jesus  had  been  magnified 
to  the  utmost  verge  of  Apostolic  conception,  God  was  in 
the  height  above,  and  God  in  unapproachable  Sovereignty 
beyond. 

The  volume,  which  Mr.  Liddon  so  suicidally  makes  his  re 
pertory  of  proofs,  presents  its  two  most  prominent  figures, 
our  Lord  Himself,  and  St.  Paul,  both  plainly  inculcating  that 
the  Father  is  the  Only  True  God,  the  One  God,  the  Only  God. 
And  the  Father  is,  incontrovertibly,  a  Personal  Being,  not  a 
Divine  Nature  embracing  a  Plurality  of  Persons,  each  of 
Whom  is  God.  When  to  this  truth  is  joined  the  admitted 
fact  of  the  Son's  Personal  distinctness  from  the  Father,  the 
conclusion  is  irresistibly  brought  out,  —  the  Son  is  not  Per 
sonally  the  One  Only  True  God,  and  is,  therefore,  either  a 
second  God  of  a  lower  grade,  or  not  God  at  all.  Arianisrn 
testifies  how  the  minds  of  multitudes  in  the  early  Church 
did  not  shrink  from  the  former  of  these  alternatives,  which, 


396  HOW   OFTEN,    IN    THE    SCRIPTURES, 

to  Christians  of  modern  days,  appears  to  be  more  verbally 
than  really  distinguishable  from  the  latter.  The  intellectual 
difficulties  of  the  Arian  Christ  are  not  greater  than  those  of 
the  Christ  of  Catholic  Christendom,  but  they  are  a  favorite 
topic  with  Orthodox  Protestants,  and  are  eagerly  assaulted 
with  Rationalistic  weapons,  whose  use  against  Orthodoxy  is 
vehemently  cried  down. 

In  some  largely  circulated  editions  of  the  Bible  (JBagster's) 
long  lists  of  texts  are  given,  wherein  Christ  is  imagined  to 
be  called  God.  Most  of  these  are  utilized  by  Mr.  Liddon, 
and  have  in  the  preceding  pages  been  investigated.  Cor 
rected  readings-  in  a  few  instances,  and,  in  general,  the 
contexts,  and  the  exercise  of  common  sense,  disperse  the 
labored  blunders  concocted  for 'the  edification  of  credulous 
Protestants,  who  exult  in  possessing  an  all-sufficient  Written 
Rule  by  which  they  do  not  test  their  inherited  beliefs.  Ec 
clesiastical  authority  originating  doctrines  of  faith  is  repu 
diated  ;  but  a  selection  of  Ecclesiastical  traditions  labelled 
"Bible-teachings,"  and  illogically  patched  on  to  Scripture 
in  Commentaries  and  Sermons,  passes  muster  undetected, 
through  willing  ears  and  prepossessed  minds. 

Besides  the  quotation  from  Psalm  xlv.  (Heb.  i.  8,  9),  the 
New  Testament  contains  only  two  texts  in  which  Christ  is 
denominated  God,  —  namely,  John  i.  1,  xx.  28,  —  all  other 
asserted  instances  being  either  mistaken  applications  or  erro 
neous  readings.*  The  former  of  these  texts  has  been  dis 
cussed  in  the  preceding  pages ;  and  the  adequacy  of  its 
obscure  phraseology  to  sustain  an  elaborate  pile  of  doctrine 
may  be  safely  left  to  the  judgment  of  all  candid  men  ac 
quainted  with  Greek.  As  to  the  exclamation  of  Thomas 
when  convinced  of  our  Lord's  Resurrection,  theologians  who 

*  The  reading,  only-begotten  God  for  only-begotten  Son  (John  i.  18),  is 
too  decidedly  unsuited  to  the  sentence  in  which  it  stands  to  be  probable, 
but  it  has  very  respectable  external  evidence.  Theologians  who  turn 
that  reading  to  account  are  bound  to  show  how  the  specific  difference 
between  begotten  and  unbeyotten  is  compatible  with  the  Self-existence  and 
Eternity  inseparable  from  true  Godhead.  Generated  Self-existence,  and 
Eternity  with  a  starting-point,  are  curious  ideas. 


IS   CHRIST    CALLED    GOD  ?  397 

will  build  a  doctrine  upon  that  are  not  likely  to  see  the  un- 
soundness  of  their  foundation.  Rational  exposition  will  un 
grudgingly  leave  them  the  text  for  what  it  is  worth,  and  afford 
them  the  opportunity  of  performing  exegetical  feats  in  argu 
ing  from  a  couple  of  words  against  inferences  and  statements 
with  which  the  New  Testament  teems. 

Attempts  have  been  made  to  appropriate  the  Church's 
teaching,  without  any  frank,  honest  recognition  of  the 
Church's  paramount  authority  as  the  divinely  commissioned 
Teacher  of  truth.  The  mere  witness  of  the  Church  to  an 
asserted  sense  of  Scripture  has  been  held  to  establish  that 
sense,  and  to  guarantee  Apostolicity  of  doctrine ;  but  no 
mere  witness  can  establish  an  unreasonable  interpretation  of 
documents  which  lie  open  to  reason's  inspection,  and  the 
doctrine  of  Christ's  Deity  is,  besides,  very  far  from  possessing 
a  full  and  unbroken  historical  attestation.  The  century  after 
the  departure  of  the  Apostles  is  an  undepicted  and  undepict- 
able  time.  Its  literature  has  almost  entirely  perished,  and 
nothing  survives  duly  to  represent  its  features.  Writers,  the 
most  nearly  subsequent,  throw  no  true  light  on  its  details, 
crises,  and  disputes;  for,  in  Ecclesiastical  history,  "first, 
among  general  facts,  is  the  ignorance  of  the  third  and  fourth 
centuries  respecting  the  first,  and  earlier  half  of  the  second." 
And  this  destitution  in  necessary  evidence  is  not  all  the 
difficulty  with  which  students  are  confronted  who  refuse  to 
take  for  granted  the  Church's  revealing  office  and  divinely 
insured  freedom  from  error  in  Articles  of  Faith.  The  Arian- 
ism  of  the  fourth  century  was  very  widely  spread,  and  invoked 
both  Scriptural  and  post-Scriptural  testimony.  The  language 
of  the  Ante-Xicenc  Fathers  is  often  such  as  no  sensible,  well- 
informed  Orthodox  man  of  later  days  could  have  permitted 
himself  to  use.  The  necessity  which  Bishop  Bull  experienced, 
of  adding  much  commentary  and  explanation  in  order  to 
show  how  the  right  meaning  was  contained  in  the  language 
of  the  Fathers  Avhom  he  cites,  has  been  the  occasion  of  fre 
quent  remark. 

The  statements  of  a  learned  and  moderate  Roman  Catholic 


398  DOUBTFUL   VIEWS   OF   SOME   OF 

theologian  (Mr.  H.  N.  Oxenham)  very  pertinently  exhibit 
the  strict  truth  in  relation  to  this  aspect  of  our  subject :  — 

"  We  must  not  imagine  that  the  principle  of  development 
applies  only  to  the  less  fundamental  doctrines  of  Christianity. 
It  is  most  conspicuously  illustrated  in  the  case  of  those  two 
supreme  verities  on  which  all  the  rest  depend,  —  the  Trinity 
and  the  Incarnation.  We  are  reminded  of  this,  as  regards 
the  former  doctrine,  by  two  of  the  greatest  names  respec 
tively  in  Anglican  and  in  Catholic  theology,  —  Petavius,  the 
Jesuit,  and  Bishop  Bull.  The  Defensio  Fidel  Niccence  has 
won  for  its  author  a  deservedly  high  reputation,  and  is  quoted 
respectfully  by  eminent  Catholic  divines ;  but  in  his  contro 
versy  with  Petavius,  though  he  may  have  the  better  of  the 
argument  in  some  detailed  instances,  he  has  certainly  failed 
to  make  out  his  case  as  a  whole.  All  impartial  judges,  on 
either  side,  are  now  agreed  that  Petavius  is  right  as  to  the 
heterodox  language,  implying  often  heterodox  notions,  about 
the  Holy  Trinity,  which  many  Ante-Nicene  writers  use. 
The  fact  that,  in  an  elaborate  treatise  on  the  Holy  Ghost, 
written  expressly  against  heretics,  St.  Basil  studiously  refrains 
from  giving  Him  the  Name  of  God  (which  was  first  done  by 
the  Council  of  Alexandria  in  363)  would  alone  indicate  this. 
So,  again,  Justin  Martyr  speaks  of  the  Son  as  inferior  to  the 
Father,  in  His  Divine  Nature.  .  .  .  Many  Fathers,  both 
Greek  and  Latin,  in  arguing  with  the  Arians,  treat  the  unity 
of  Persons  in  the  Holy  Trinity  as  specific  rather  than  nu 
merical.  Cudworth  (Intellectual  System)  not  only  says  this 
with  especial,  though  not  exclusive,  reference  to  Cyril  of 
Alexandria,  Gregory  Nyssen,  Anastasius,  Maximus  the  Mar 
tyr,  and  John  of  Damascus,  but  roundly  accuses  them  of 
teaching  a  '  Trinity  no  other  than  a  kind  of  tritheism,'  while 
he  charges  several  others  with  denying  a  co-equality  of  Per 
sons  "  ( Catholic  Doctrine  of  the  Atonement,  Introduction, 
2d  ed.,  pp.  23-25). 

Mr.  Oxenham  sustains  these  statements  by  quotations  from 
Dr.  Newman's  Anglican  work,  "  The  Arians  of  the  Fourth 
Century ; "  from  the  late  Professor  Blunt's  Lectures  on  the 


THE    ANTE-NICENE    WRITERS.  399 

"Right  Use  of  the  Fathers;"  and  from  Dean  Merivale's  Lect 
ures  on  the  "  Conversion  of  the  Northern  Nations."  The 
writer  last  named,  speaking  of  the  Trinitarian  dogma  in  the 
age  of  the  Apologists,  says :  "  The  time  wras  not  yet  ripe  for 
its  full  and  consistent  exposition.  .  .  .  The  discrimination  of 
the  Persons  of  the  Godhead  was  as  yet  unsteady  and  fluct 
uating."  Mr.  Oxenham,  and  the  concurring  authors  whom  he 
quotes,  while  they  do  not  attempt  to  conceal  the  frequently 
halting,  inadequate,  doubtful,  or  more  than  doubtful,  lan 
guage  of  the  earlier  Fathers,  are  individually  satisfied  that 
the  Nicene  dogma  is  "the  legitimate  outcome  of  Ante- 
Nicene  theology  as  a  whole." 

Mr.  Liddon  declares  :  "  Undoubtedly,  it  should  be  frankly 
granted  that  some  of  the  Ante-Nicene  writers  do  at  times 
employ  terms  which,  judged  by  a  Nicene  standard,  must  be 
pronounced  unsatisfactory."  But  he  follows  up  this  declara 
tion  with  the  plea :  "  In  truth,  these  Ante-Nicene  Fathers 
were  feeling  their  wTay,  not  towards  the  substance  of  the 
faith,  which  they  possessed  in  its  fulness,  but  towards  that 
intellectual  mastery  both  of  its  relationship  to  outer  forms 
of  thought,  and  of  its  own  internal  harmonies  and  system, 
which  is  obviously  a  perfectly  distinct  gift  from  the  simple 
possession  of  the  faith  itself.  As  Christians,  they  possessed 
the  faith  itself.  The  faith,  delivered  once  for  all,  had  been 
given  to  the  Church  in  its  completeness  by  the  Apostles" 
(p.  420). 

This  pleading  is  not  sufficiently  to  the  point.  Language 
which  falls  below  the  Nicene  definitions  suggests  that  its 
authors  did  not  entertain,  as  a  necessary  article  of  faith,  that 
view  of  the  Divine  Nature  which  the  later  Church  put  forth 
with  authority,  and  confirmed  by  universal  acceptance.  The 
difficulty  involved  is  the  same  in  kind,  though  not  for  the 
Protestant  so  formidable  in  degree,  as  that  which  the  Sacred 
Scriptures  furnish.  The  dogma  of  Christ's  Deity,  however 
perplexing  when  contested  and  weighed,  admits  and  incites 
most  simple  and  unmistakable  statement,  when  thoroughly 
believed.  Its  very  mystery  causes  the  sincere  believer  to  be 


400  THE   NICENE   DOGMA    A   GROWTH. 

clear  and  unflinching  in  its  avowal.  Yet,  in  the  literary 
remains  of  the  earlier  Christian  times,  the  more  'nearly  we 
approach  the  century  after  our  Lord's  resurrection,  the  more 
loose  and  defective,  not  to  say  palpably  erroneous,  do  the 
statements  regarding  Christ's  relation  to  the  Everlasting 
Godhead  become.  Justin  Martyr's  Logos-doctrine  does  not 
mount  to  '  the  level  of  the  Church's  requirements,  and  the 
sub-apostolic  Fathers  who  preceded  Justin  do  not  make  use 
of  the  indispensable  metaphysical  conception  which,  in  vary 
ing  forms,  appears  in  Plato,  Philo,  and  the  Fourth  Gospel. 
Non-heretical  theology,  for  the  first  hundred  years  following 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  did  not  go  beyond  the  Synoptical  Gos 
pels,  on  the  topic  of  Christ's  Person.  No  fact  in  the  history 
of  opinion  is  more  clearly  provable  than  that  the  Orthodox 
dogma  was  a  growth,  developed  amid  controversy,  and  fixed  in 
the  face  of  strong  opposition.  If  it  had  an  existence  in  Apos 
tolic  days  and  teachings,  it  was  only  as  a  seed,  the  smallest 
of  all  seeds,  invisible  to  eyes  not  specially  invigorated  to  dis 
cern  it.  The  Catholic  believer  may  rejoice  in  the  full  assur 
ance  of  an  unquestioning  faith,  that  the  dogma  was,  through 
Divine  instruction,  from  the  very  first,  germinally  and  poten 
tially  present  in  the  Church  ;  but  the  critic  who  discards  the 
assumption  of  the  Church's  immunity  from  error  will  trace 
the  real  roots  of  the  dogma  in  the  treatises  of  Philo,  and  the 
philosophy  of  Plato. 

The  most  able  of  the  Fathers,  in  their  anxiety  to  argue 
from  Scripture,  at  times  weaken  their  position,  and  seem  but 
imperfectly  to  apprehend  the  sovereignty  and  magnitude  of 
the  Church's  mission.  The  extensive  prevalence  of  equivo 
cation,  jealousy,  turbulence,  violence,  and  persecution,  in  the 
theological  strifes  of  the  fourth  century,  clouded  the  spiritual 
glory  of  Ecclesiastical  movements ;  and  perhaps  the  fact  that 
Imperial  favor  had  much  to  do  with  the  alternating  prepond 
erance  of  wrestling  factions  predisposed  minds  to  seek  too 
cravingly  an  adequate  Scriptural  base  for  the  minutely  defi 
nite  formulas  which  sprang  from  a  newer  inspiration.  A 
highly  nurtured  and  keenly  sensitive  faith  was  needed  to 


CONFLICTING   VOICES   OF   COUNCILS.  401 

recognize  the  Divine  guidance,  and  to  catch  the  accents  of 
Heaven-descended,  revealing  wisdom,  amid  the  din  and  tur 
moil  of  excited  disputants,  some  of  whom,  according  to  the 
testimony  of  the  historian  Socrates  (writing  at  the  middle 
of  the  fifth  century),  were  proved  by  their  letters  to  have 
been  troubled  about  the  term  homoousion  —  of  the  same 
Essence,  —  and  to  have  contended  for  the  faith  in  the  dark, 
with  no  intelligent  comprehension  of  the  propositions  before 
them  (Socrates,  Ecd.  Hist.,  Bk.  i.  23). 

The  Church,  of  the  period  when  the  confession  concerning 
Christ's  Person  was  settled,  was  not  resplendent  in  morals 
and  intellect.  Measured  by  the  conduct  of  its  members,  it 
bore  few  outward  prints  of  sanctity,  and  was  blurred  with 
many  stains  of  ignorance,  credulity,  profligacy,  impiety,  and 
blindly  savage  contentiousness.  The  short-sighted  and  derog 
atory  estimate  of  Episcopal  Conventions,  avowed  by  Gregory 
of  Nazianzum,  was  excusable.  He  could  not  look  along  the 
stream  as  we  do,  and  admire  the  wonderful  unanimity  of 
Ecclesiastical  adherence  to  a  dogma  which  transcends  con 
sistent  expression,  —  an  unanimity  conspicuous  through  ages 
broadly  stamped  with  intellectual  suppression,  political  enor 
mities,  and  moral  corruption.  There  is,  therefore,  no  cause 
for  astonishment,  if  the  combatants,  and  near  spectators  of 
the  ft  ay,  occasionally  failed  rightly  to  perceive  and  appreciate 
the  Church's  living  voice,  inspiration,  and  supremacy.  From 
Episcopal  Conclaves  themselves  uncertain  and  discordant 
sounds  issued.  Councils  held  in  the  fourth  century,  between 
those  of  Nica3a  and  Constantinople,  set  forth  Creeds  purposely 
eluding  the  Nicene  faith,  and  among  them  one  assembled  at 
Ariminum  (Rimini),  A.D.  359,  consisting  of  more  than  four 
hundred  Bishops  (the  number  at  Nicaea  was  about  three 
hundred),  naturally  had  an  appearance  of  weight. 

The  late  Dean  Goode,  in  the  second  volume  of  his  large 
and  learned  work,  "  The  Divine  Rule  of  Faith  and  Practice  " 
(p.  130),  cites  from  St.  Augustine  a  striking  passage,  in  which 
the  ill-judged  and  virtually  destructive  reasoning  of  Protest 
ants  is  anticipated.  The  Dean  writes  :  "  Nay,  even  in  the 

26 


402  THE   NECESSITY   FOR   AN 

highest  points,  not  only  is  Catholic  consent  incapable  of 
proof,  but  the  partial  consent  adduced  is  met  by  counter- 
statements,  pleading  an  opposing  witness  of  equal  authority." 

For  instance  take  the  case  of  Avian,  Nestorian,  or  Pelagian 
errors.  Arius,  as  we  have  seen,  appealed  to  Antiquity  as  in 
his  favor,  and  not  only  were  there  several  dissentients  to  the 
decision  come  to  at  Nice,  but  not  long  after,  at  another 
Council  composed  of  nearly  twice  as  many  Bishops,  the  oppo 
site  doctrine  was  maintained.  Can  we  appeal  then  to  the 
decision  of  the  Nicene  Council  as  infallible,  as  binding  the 
conscience  to  belief,  as  authoritative?  Augustine  knew  bet 
ter  than  to  do  so.  When  disputing  with  Maximinus  the 
Avian,  what  is  his  language?  "But  now,"  he  says  (i.e., 
while  arguing  this  question),  "neither  ought  I  to  bring  for 
ward  the  Nicene  Council,  nor  you  that  of  Ariminum,  as  if 
we  could  thus  settle  the  question.  Neither  am  I  bound  by 
the  authority  of  the  one,  nor  you  by  the  authority  of  the 
other.  We  must  argue  the  matter  point  with  point,  cause 
with  cause,  reason  with  reason,  by  authorities  of  Scripture, 
witnesses  not  belonging  to  any  party,  but  common  to  both." 
Was  not  this  then  to  make  Scripture  the  Judge  of  the  con 
troversy  ? 

This  much  at  least  is  plain :  without  a  Tribunal  of  appeal, 
authoritative  and  unambiguous  in  its  sentence,  the  contro 
versy  over  Christ's  Deity  will  be  a  wasting  one  for  Ortho 
doxy.  Whether  the  Bible  or  the  Church  is  assumed  to  be 
the  divinely  commissioned  Legislator  and  Judge,  two  things 
are  absolutely  necessary,  the  legislative  and  judicial  authority 
must  be  unquestioned,  the  laws  and  decisions  clearly  stated. 
If  either  of  these  things  is  wanting,  the  storms  of  theological 
dissension  will  continue,  except  in  so  far  as  they  give  place 
to  contemptuous  indifference.  Make  Holy  Scripture  the  sole 
standard,  clothe  every  sentence,  word,  and  syllable  in  the 
mantle  of  infallible  inspiration,  and  what  is  gained  for  Ortho 
dox  Protestantism,  if  the  sense  of  Scripture  is  too  latent,  ov 
too  equivocally  expressed  for  reason's  recognition?  If  dis 
putes  are  to  be  ended  in  favor  of  Orthodoxy,  an  interpreting 


AUTHORITATIVE   TRIBUNAL.  403 

voice  is  needed,  whose  prerogative  will  be  magnified  in  the 
same  proportion  as  Scripture  is  exalted.  Make  Holy  Script 
ure  subordinate  and  subsidiary  to  the  Church  in  the  scheme 
of  revealing  Instrumentality,  and  then,  however  intrinsically 
mysterious  the  doctrine,  there  will  be  no  cause  to  complain 
of  inadequate  statement,  while  the  assumption  of  unerring 
guidance  may  be  as  reasonably  made  on  behalf  of  the  Church 
as  on  behalf  of  the  Bible.  But  if,  in  compliance  with  the 
fundamental  axiom  of  Protestantism,  the  Church  is  dethroned 
from  both  revealing  and  interpreting  supremacy,  the  doctrine 
in  aid  of  which  Mr.  Liddon  has  contended  will  vanish  from 
the  Creed  of  Protestants.  Not  being  the  plain,  ascertainable 
meaning  of  the  Sacred  Writers,  and  not  having  been  in 
trusted  to  any  other  divinely  appointed  Channel,  it  will  be 
classed  among  seemingly  kindred  examples  of  human  error. 
The  history  of  mankind  notifies  a  tendency  to  exalt  and 
Deify  not  only  personified  ideals,  but  also  the  Founders  and 
Renovators  of  religious  faiths.  In  the  absence  of  clearly 
pronounced  ordaining  Revelation  the  dogma  of  our  Lord's 
Divinity  is  sure  to  be  measured  from  the  basis  of  this  ten 
dency  ;  and,  so  measured,  the  figure  of  Jesus,  as  lie  appears 
in  the  first  three  Gospels,  would  be  judged  to  have  grown 
under  the  progressive  action  of  hallowing  imagination  into 
His  figure  as  conceived  by  the  fourth  Evangelist,  and  that 
again,  after  a  struggle  with  Monotheistic  tradition  and  in 
stinct,  to  have  been  expanded  into  Co-essential  Godhead, 
nominally  One  with  the  Father,  to  allay  the  alarms  of  Mono 
theism, —  Personally  a  Being  distinct  from  the  Father  to 
satisfy  the  old  Polytheistic  propensity  which  had  always 
bribed  speculation  to  dilute  the  sublime  truth  that  "the 
Only  True  God,  the  One  God  and  Father,  is  a  Spirit,  an 
Invisible  King  of  the  ages,  Whom  never  man  saw,  nor  can 
see." 

Thoughtful  believers  in  the  Deity  of  Jesus  Christ  cannot 
be  grounded  and  settled  in  their  faith  without  the  conception 
of  a  revealing  Church,  to  whose  guardianship  Christian  doc 
trine  has  for  all  time  been  committed,  and  through  whose 


404  CONCLUSIONS   TO   WHICH    FACTS  POINT. 

assenting  and  formally  certifying  voice  the  great  stages  in 
the  unfolding  growth  of  doctrine  have  been,  from  time  to 
time,  announced.  The  incompetence  of  Protestantism  for 
Orthodox  ends  becomes  daily  more  perceptible  and  more 
perceived.  The  conclusion  forces  itself  upon  men's  minds 
that  adherence  to  Protestantism  signifies  abandonment  of 
Orthodoxy;  adherence  to  Orthodoxy,  abandonment  of  Pro 
testantism.  Those  various  Protestant  communities  which, 
differing  in  much  else,  concur  in  persistently  proclaiming  the 
Catholic  doctrine  of  Christ's  Person,  are  surely  paving  the 
way  for  large  accessions  to  the  Catholic  Church.  Intellectual 
consistency,  though  temporarily  violated,  will  eventually 
triumph,  and  individuals  who  are  unable  to  renounce  the 
dogma  will,  in  multiplying  numbers,  accept  along  with  the 
dogma  the  only  foundation  on  which  the  dogma  can  logically 
rest. 

The  doctrine  most  assiduously,  though  after  an  injudicious 
mode,  defended  by  Mr.  Liddon,  has  a  tendency  when  made  a 
sine  qua  non,  and  clung  to  as  the  heart  and  citadel  of  Chris 
tian  Faith,  to  turn  the  eyes  of  the  understanding  and  attract 
the  heart  towards  the  beauty  of  the  ancient  Organization 
which  our  forefathers  deserted.  This  tendency,  long  dor 
mant,  and  suspected  by  few,  now  exerts  itself  with  accumu 
lating  force,  as  the  unnoted  impulse  of  traditionalism,  carried 
away  by  the  Reformed  Churches  in  their  jevolt,  becomes 
sufficiently  relaxed  to  be  the  subject  of  sober  and  unpreju 
diced  inquiry. 

Trinitarian  Nonconformists  in  this  country,  vauntingly 
proclaim  their  attachment  to  Reformation  principles,  and 
especially  to  the  notion  that  Holy  Scripture,  reasonably  un 
derstood,  is  a  supreme  and  sufficient  Rule  of  Faith ;  but,  if 
they  set  store  by  their  Protestantism,  let  them  take  heed  lest 
the  Catholic  dogma,  faithfully  cherished,  should  entail  gravi 
tation  towards  the  duly  accredited  Catholic  Body.  English 
Dissenters,  who  are  steadfast  in  their  Orthodoxy,  may  learn 
to  see  that  complete  truth  is  the  heritage  and  ever-enlarging 
treasure  of  the  divinely  inhabited  Church,  and  is  not,  as  they 


CONCLUSIONS   TO   WHICH   PACTS   POINT.  405 

once  fondly  imagined,  deducible  from  Scripture  by  individual 
searching  and  judgment.  The  more  steadily  they  resist  the 
inducements  of  Rationalism,  and  repudiate  a  form  of  religion 
which  has  no  better  foundations  than  faith  in  God,  in 
conscience,  in  a  future  life,  and  in  Christ  as  God's  inspired 
Servant  and  Messenger,  the  more  prevailingly  will  they  be 
drawn  to  retrace  the  steps,  and  forsake  the  tenets,  of  their  re 
volutionary  ancestors.  Startling  as  the  thought  of  such  a 
transformation  may  appear,  they  will  probably  yet  perceive 
the  traditions  of  the  Church  to  be  as  precious  as,  and  more 
revealing  than,  the  Written  Word,  and  will  acknowledge 
Bishops  alone  to  be  endowed  with  the  right  and  the  power 
of  announcing  and  imposing  what  is  pure  and  legitimate  in 
Christian  doctrine. 

In  the  Church  of  England,  Protestant  elements  are  con 
fessedly  balanced  by  elements  of  an  opposite  kind,  and  the 
recurrence  to  pre-Reformation  principles  is,  therefore,  less 
obviously  necessary  than  among  professors  of  Puritan 
Christianity.  But  though  the  departure  from  definite,  un- 
mutilated  Catholicism  has  been,  among  us,  less  wide  and 
fundamental  than  among  our  Nonconforming  fellow-country 
men,  and  has  left  us,  on  one  side  of  our  Church's  teaching, 
more  tenable  ground,  yet,  even  within  the  Anglican  Com 
munion,  jealously  tenacious  retention  of  the  grand  Ecclesias 
tical  dogma  will  work  towards  an  eventual  restoration  of 
unity,  and  contribute  to  heal  the  Disruption  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  by  attracting  our  fragment  into  union  with  the 
main  body  of  Christendom.  It  is,  indeed,  impossible  to  pon 
der  the  historical  manifestations  and  the  individual  influence 
of  the  dogma,  without  feeling  in  how  great  a  degree  the 
Deity  of  Jesus  is  the  sap  and  fibre  of  the  whole  Ecclesiasti 
cal  system.  The  methods  and  details  of  dogmatic  Ortho 
doxy  have  been  penetrated  with  it,  and  unfolded  around  it  by 
intrinsic  connection  and  natural  growth.  For  all  the  dis 
tinctive  doctrinal  characteristics  of  Catholic  Christendom, 
the  belief  that  Jesus  Christ  is  God  appears  to  be  directly  or 
indirectly  responsible. 


406  CONCLUSIONS   TO   WHICH   FACTS   POINT. 

And  by  this  belief,  far  more  than  by  any  thing  else,  Evan 
gelical  Churchmanship  and  Orthodox  Protestantism  are  at 
the  present  hour  instigated  and  sustained,  in  their  virulent, 
but  inconsistent  and  impotent,  antagonism  towards  free 
religious  thought.  Modern  Evangelicals,  whether  Church 
men  or  Nonconformists,  are  not  the  true  intellectual  progeny 
of  the  Reformation.  The  Anglican  Reformers  and  the  Puri 
tans  had  valid  excuses  —  which  advancing  knowledge  has 
deprived  of  validity  —  for  their  adherence  to  traditional 
dogma.  The  questions  to  which  modern  criticism  has  given 
birth  could  have  been  anticipated  by  very  few  in  the  six 
teenth  and  seventeenth  centuries  ;  and  preconceptions,  rooted 
through  forty  zealously  assenting  generations,  disguised  for  a 
season  the  fact  that,  together  with  a  freely  consulted  Bible, 
the  pretensions  of  Rational,  as  opposed  to  Ecclesiastical, 
Monotheism,  must  be  at  no  distant  date  urgently  revived. 
The  revival  was  at  first  within  a  narrow  circle,  and  expressed 
itself  through  arguments  too  refined  and  intellectual  to 
kindle  popular  sympathy ;  but  in  the  maxims  of  the  Refor 
mation  it  found  the  food  of  an  intense  and  imperishable  life. 
Indeed,  nothing  less  than  the  safeguard  discarded  by  the  Re 
formers  (authority,  imperiously  ruling  interpretation)  could 
have  preserved  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  Deity  intact  amid  the 
destructively  free  handling  applied  to  other  portions  of  the 
Church's  system.  Protestant  principle  commanded  the  whole 
dogmatic  field,  and  openly  avowed  reserves  and  exemptions 
were  impossible.  The  extremest  forms  of  prostration  before, 
and  arbitrary  assumption  about,  the  Bible,  were  never  im 
agined  to  protect  the  contents  of  the  Bible  from  diligent 
searching  and  reasonable  exposition.  And,  upon  the  axioms 
enunciated  by  the  Reformers,  no  preliminary  conceptions 
respecting  the  inspiration,  the  purposes,  and  the  sole  suprem 
acy  of  the  Sacred  Volume,  could  eventually  escape  rational 
scrutiny,  and,  if  needful,  corrective  modification. 

Two  dangers,  therefore,  threatened  the  tenet  of  Christ's 
actual  Personal  Deity  ;  the  nearer  and  more  obvious  danger 
springing  out  of  deferential  but  reasonable  interpretation, 


PROTESTANTISM   MUST   GO    FORWARD.  407 

and  the  remote  and  unforeseen  danger  springing  out  of 
unrestrained  historical  and  critical  investigation  into  the  ori 
gin,  authenticity,  and  general  claims  and  warranty  of  the 
Canonical  Books  themselves.  Both  dangers  have  established 
their  reality,  have  acquired  formidable  proportions,  and  are 
now  menacing  with  accumulated  force  and  urgency.  The 
tree  planted  by  the  Reformation  has  borne  unexpected  and 
unwelcome  fruits.  The  Latitudinarian  theory  maintained  by 
Jeremy  Taylor,  Archbishop  Tillotson,  and  others,  —  "  Reason 
is  the  judge  ;  that  is,  we,  who  are  the  persons  to  be  persuaded, 
must  see  that  we  be  persuaded  reasonably,"  —  is  the  expres 
sion  of  fundamental  Protestantism,  and  is  cruelly  adverse  to 
conclusions  accepted  when  faith  was  capacious  and  eager, 
intelligence  and  morality  contracted  and  slow. 

Protestants  are  not  the  legitimate,  and  cannot  be  the  effi 
cient,  champions  of  traditional  dogma.  Their  attempted 
action  in  a  province  not  properly  theirs  either  ends  in  their 
gravitation  towards  the  Church  system  they  repudiate,  or  wins 
their  consent  to  the  Rationalism  they  assail.  Within  the 
Anglican  Establishment,  the  former  of  these  results  has  been 
conspicuous  since  the  avidity  displayed  by  the  Evangelicals 
in  the  prosecution  of  two  contributors  to  the  memorable 
volume,  "  Essays  and  Reviews."  The  temporary  coalition  with 
High  Churchmen,  for  the  ejection  of  moderate  and  cautious 
exponents  of  Protestant  liberty  in  thought,  has  been  followed 
by  the  arrested  growth  and  rapid  decline  of  the  Evangelical 
Party.  Whether  this  sequence  of  events  is  to  be  viewed  as 
a  recompense  of  reward,  or  of  punishment,  is  a  point  about 
which  opinions  will  naturally  differ.  Catholics  will  recognize 
a  Divine  gift  and  blessing  in  the  reviving  perception  of  the 
Church's  prerogatives ;  consistent  Protestants  will  discern  a 
well-merited  righteous  retribution,  in  the  paralysis  of  a  Party 
which,  in  the  hour  of  trial,  spurned  the  oifspring  of  its  own 
principles,  and  deserted  the  work  God  had  given  it  to  do. 
The  Protestantism  which  refuses  now  to  go  forward  is,  in  the 
judgment  of  every  Liberal  thinker,  apostate,  and  doomed  to 
speedy  extinction. 


408  RADICAL   DIFFERENCES   BETWEEN 

And  "  to  go  forward  "  unquestionably  means  to  relinquish, 
as  conditions  of  Christian  fellowship  and  brotherhood,  the 
Nicene  and  Athanasian  definitions  of  the  Divine  Nature. 
Intelligible  Monotheism,  practically  exhibited  in  the  exclusive 
worship  with  the  honors  due  to  Deity,  of  the  "  One  God  and 
Father  of  all,"  is  the  heart  and  essence  of  Progressive,  as 
opposed  to  Conservative,  theology.  To  set  forth  this  issue 
distinctly,  and  to  expose  the  mischievously  untenable  and  men 
tally  debasing  nature  of  Orthodox  Protestant  pretensions 
to  stand  upon  Scripture  reasonably  understood,  is  the  best 
service  to  Truth  that  either  Liberal  or  Catholic  writers  can 
at  the  present  juncture  render. 

Between  the  asserters  of  Ecclesiastical  sovereignty,  and 
the  advocates  of  free  inquiry,  there  are  wide  and  clearly 
marked  differences  of  preliminary  conception,  of  method,  and 
of  practical  teaching.  Each  lays  at  the  other's  door  a  heavy 
impeachment.  The  Catholic  reproaches  the  Theist  with  leav 
ing  men  to  wander  in  the  mazes  of  speculation,  unchecked 
and  unguided  ;  with  abandoning  the  essentials  of  Christianity, 
and  shaping  the  details  of  education  and  conduct  without 
regard  to  God's  Revealed  Will.  The  Theist  retorts,  by 
pointing  to  the  effects  of  Catholic  teaching,  and  declaring 
that  Ecclesiastical  dogmas  have  darkened  the  mind,  dimin 
ished  faith,  lowered  morality,  hampered  and  twisted  the  de 
votional  instincts,  and  stereotyped  ideas  of  God  and  God's 
dealings,  calculated  to  retard  the  soul's  progress,  and  defraud 
mankind  of  half  the  benefits  attainable  through  an  undog- 
matic,  simple,  and  pure  Christianity. 

These  retaliatory  accusations  contain  matter  for  intermin 
able  debate,  and  as  to  their  truth  or  falsehood  I  am  not  called 
to  offer  an  opinion;  but  the  incapacity  of  Protestantism, 
logically  and  morally,  to  curtail  Christian  fellowship  by  the 
imposition  of  Catholic  doctrine  is,  I  think,  a  fact  demonstra 
ble  to  the  great  majority  of  honestly  inquiring  minds.  The 
particular  doctrine,  so  eloquently  re-stated  in  the  Bampton 
Lectures  for  1866,  may  be  the  grandest  and  most  profitable 
among  Christian  verities,  but  it  rests  upon  the  foundation  of 


ECCLESIASTICISM   AND   RATIONALISM.  409 

Church  authority,  and  falls  when  the  support  of  that  authority 
is  withdrawn.  In  enforced  association  with  Protestantism, 
it  is  totally  out  of  place ;  and,  whatever  advantages  may 
attend  it  elsewhere,  its  imposition  as  an  Article  of  Faith 
within  the  Churches  of  the  Reformation  is  unwarranted  and 
demoralizing. 


SUPPLEMENTARY  NOTE. 


A  PAMPHLET  on  "  The  Thirty-nine  Articles  and  the  Creeds, 
By  a  Country  Parson,"  has  recently  come  into  my  hands.  It 
is  written  with  undeniable  vigor  and  acuteness,  in  the  form 
of  conversations,  wherein  an  Archdeacon,  a  Dean,  a  Dio 
cesan  Chancellor,  and  a  Bishop,  are  the  interlocutors.  The 
following  extract  illustrates  portions  of  my  argument,  by 
showing  how  next  to  impossible  is  explicit  statement  of  Trin 
itarian  dogma  in  conjunction  with  the  fundamental  truth  of 
the  Divine  Unity.  If  my  readers  should  think  the  reasoning 
unfair  or  defective,  they  can  exercise  their  minds  in  trying  to 
amend  it,  and  will  at  least  reap  the  benefit  of  learning  to 
measure  more  equitably  the  wisdom  and  moral  rectitude 
displayed  by  some  Protestant  Communities,  in  enforcing,  as 
an  item  of  necessary  belief,  a  tenet  which  the  thought  of  a 
Monotheist  cannot  grasp,  and  the  vocabulary  of  a  Mon- 
otheist  cannot,  without  logical  contradiction,  be  used  to 
express :  — 

Dean.  —  I  fear  that  in  your  reading  of  our  first  Article 
there  is  a  little  quibble  between  God  and  Godhead,  between 
©eo^,  the  Living  God,  and  TO  Oelor,  the  Godhead,  the  Divine, 
the  generic  term  of  the  old  philosophers,  under  which  they 
spoke  of  one  deity  or  of  many,  according  as  they  discoursed 
with  the  initiated  who  believed  in  One,  or  with  the  vulgar 
who  believed  in  many.  Let  us  try  to  avoid  heathenish 
ambiguity  by  writing  down  the  shortest  propositions,  that 


412  THE   THIRTY-NINE   ARTICLES 

we  may  keep  them  steadily  before  us.     Will  you  allow  me 
to  write  down  as  certain  verities  the  two,  A  and  J?,  thus  ?  — 

A.  God  the  Father  is  the  one  true  God. 

B.  The  one  true  God  is  God  the  Father. 

Archdeacon.  —  They  are  both  undeniably  true. 
Dean.  —  And  the  two  G,  D,  thus  ?  — 

C.  God  the  Son  is  the  one  true  God. 

D.  The  one  true  God  is  God  the  Son. 

Archdeacon.  —  These  are  both  true,  like  the  former  pair. 
Dean.  —  Then,  if  all  four  be  true,  the  first  and  the  fourth 
are  both  true,  thus  :  — 

A.  God  the  Father  is  the  one  true  God. 
D.  The  one  true  God  is  God  the  Son. 

Are  these  fairly  put  together  ?     What  follows  from  them  ? 

Archdeacon.  —  Of  course,  by  mere  logic,  that  God  the 
Father  is  God  the  Son ;  but,  because  I  acknowledged  the 
Christian  verities  in  your  premises,  I  am  not  responsible  for 
your  false  conclusion.  There  is  something  wrong. 

Dean.  —  The  premises  A,  D,  are  your  own,  and  you  logi 
cally  drew  the  conclusion.  If  the  premises  are  right,  there 
can  be  nothing  wrong,  unless  the  shortest  and  plainest  step 
that  human  reason  can  take  from  truth  to  truth  is  something 
wrong. 

Archdeacon.  —  Ah !  I  see  my  oversight :  your  propositions, 
J3  and  D,  ought  both  to  be  —  The  one  true  God  is  God  the 
Father,  God  the  Son,  and  God  the  Holy  Ghost.  That  is  the 
Church's  full  truth. 

Dean.  —  Then  call  that  E,  and  write  it  under  -4,  thus  :  — 

A.  God  the  Father  is  the  one  true  God. 

E.  The  one  true  God  is  God  the  Father,  God  the  Son,  and  God  the 
Holy  Ghost. 

These  are  your  premises :  now  draw  the  conclusion. 

Archdeacon.  —  I  decline  ;  I  am  not  bound  by  your  logical 
methods.  I  will  maintain  the  Catholic  Faith  in  the  Church's 
perfect  language,  but  not  your  contradictions. 


AND   THE   CREEDS.  413 

Dean.  —  Then  I  must  draw  it  for  you :  it  follows  of  neces 
sity  that  God  the  Father  is  God  the  Father  and  God  the  Son 
and  God  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  is  nonsense  and  impossible, 
unless  God  the  Son  and  God  the  Holy  Ghost  are  either  each 
of  them  nothing  at  all,  or  somehow  nothing  when  taken 
together.  This  would  make  the  conclusion  into  — 

God  the  Father  is  God  the  Father, 

which  is  undeniably  true. 

Archdeacon.  —  My  tjear  friend,  you  and  I  are  both  out  of 
our  depth  in  this  great  mystery.  All  this  was  quite  familiar 
to  the  Nicene  Fathers,  and  belongs  to  the  most  profound 
investigation  into  the  Holy  Trinity.  It  is  nothing  else  than 
the  sublime  truth  of  the  TTSOI^^GI^  whereby  Each  of  the 
Persons  is  in  Each,  Each  in  All,  All  in  Each,  and  All  in  All. 

Dean.  —  So  it  is  a  contradiction,  and  also  not  a  contradic 
tion,  but  the  sublimity  and  profundity  of  the  rtSQi%{nQijGi£' 
What  is  your  derivation  of  that  famous  word  ? 

Archdeacon.  —  Of  course  from  7t£Qi,  round  about,  and 
XWQSW,  I move  on  ;  it  is  a  figurative  word,  drawn  from  the 
mystery  of  circular  motion. 

Dean.  —  As  you  say,  it  is  a  figure  in  theological  science. 
I  can  easily  show  you  an  illustration.  You  see  this  metal 
disk,  movable  on  an  axis,  a  gyroscope  top  of  my  grandchild's. 
I  put  three  white  wafers  on  the  disk,  which  you  can  conceive 
to  symbolize  the  three  Persons  of  the  Trinity.  Now  I  whirl 
the  disk  rapidly  round :  what  do  you  see  ? 

Archdeacon.  —  I  see  one  complete  circle  of  white. 

Dean.  —  That  is  the  ft8Qi%coQr{Gi$,  or,  if  you  prefer  it,  the 
tvvitaqfcis.  Don't  you  agree  with  me  that  both  these  renowned 
words  may  be  well  rendered  by  the  English  word  AUround- 
inallation  ? 

Archdeacon.  —  I  have  been  over  hasty  in  allowing  you  to 
write  the  proposition  E.  The  Catholic  doctrine  is  not  exactly 
that,  but  this :  "  In  Unity  of  this  Godhead  there  are  three 
Persons,  —  God  the  Father,  God  the  Son,  and  God  the  Holy 
Ghost." 


414  THE   THIRTY-NINE   ARTICLES 

Dean.  —  I  thought  you  would  get  tired  of  the  word  God, 
and  recur  to  the  Godhead.  It  is  fatiguing  to  stand  long  on 
one  leg  when  Nature  has  given  us  two.  A  change  is  com 
fortable.  So  you  may  stand  on  the  other  leg.  We  will  talk 
a  little  about  the  Godhead.  But,  first,  are  we  quite  agreed 
that  the  Godhead,  the  Divine  Nature,  and  the  Divine  Sub 
stance  all  mean  exactly  the  same  Object  of  thought  ? 

Archdeacon.  —  Assuredly  they  do ;  the  comparison  of  the 
Latin  and  the  English  first  Article  with  the  Athanasian 
Creed  proves  that  they  have  all  one  and  the  same  meaning. 

Dean.  —  From  the  second  Article,  which  affirms  that  "  two 
whole  and  perfect  natures,  the  Godhead  and  the  Manhood, 
were  joined  together  in  One  Person,"  namely,  the  Second 
Person  of  the  Trinity,  we  are  quite  sure  —  are  we  not  ?  —  of 
the  preposition  F I  now  write :  — 

F.  The  whole  Godhead  is  in  God  the  Son. 

Archdeacon.  —  This  F  is  infallibly  true. 

Dean.  —  And  from  the  first  Article,  which  affirms  that  all 
the  Three  Persons  are  in  the  Unity  of  the  Godhead,  are  we 
not  quite  as  certain  of  this  proposition,  G  f 

G.  God  the  Son  is  in  the  whole  Godhead. 

I  do  not  know  what  you  understand  by  the  Godhead,  or  the 
whole  Godhead,  different  from  "  the  one  Living  and  true 
God;"  but  I  hope  you  know  what  you  mean.  All  that  I 
ask  is  your  assurance  that  F  and  G-  are  both  alike  true. 

Archdeacon.  —  I  am  certain  that  they  are  both  alike  true. 

Dean.  —  If  F  be  true,  the  following  must  be  true  :  — 

H.  God  the  Son  is  not  less  than  the  whole  Godhead ; 

for,  if  He  were,  the  whole  Godhead  could  not  be  in  God  the 
Son.  And  if  G-  be  true,  this  ./must  be  true :  — 

I.  God  the  Son  is  not  greater  than  the  whole  Godhead ; 

for,  if  He  were,  He  could  not  be  in  the  Godhead,  as  the  first 
Article  affirms  Him  to  be.  Are  these  propositions,  .ZTand  1^ 
quite  true  ? 


AND   THE    CREEDS.  415 

Archdeacon.  —  What  right  have  you  to  introduce  these 
terms  of  quantity,  greater  and  less,  into  propositions  about 
the  Trinity? 

Dean.  —  I  am  only  doing  what  is  already  done  in  the  Ar 
ticles  and  in  the  Athanasian  Creed.  The  Church  makes 
propositions  containing  whole  and  greater,  and  less  and  equal, 
about  the  Three  Persons. 

Archdeacon.  —  I  agree  that  she  does;  and  I  confidently 
affirm  your  two  propositions  to  be  true,  namely : 

If.  God  the  Son  is  not  less  than  the  whole  Godhead. 
J.  God  the  Son  is  not  greater  than  the  whole  Godhead. 

They  are  the  Church's  plain  teaching ;  but  I  am  not  bound 
by  the  methods  of  your  long-winded  logic. 

Dean.  —  I  shall  not  be  long,  as  you  will  see;  and  now  you 
may  stand  on  both  your  venerable  legs.     For  from  JTand  I, 
whether  you  will  or  no,  follows  this  proposition  J:  — 
J.  God  the  Son  is  verily  and  truly  the  whole  Godhead ; 

for  lie  is  neither  greater  nor  less  than  it. 

Archdeacon.  —  Of  course  the  Church  has  always  taught 
that  each  of  the  Three  Persons  has  in  Himself  the  whole 
undivided  Godhead. 

Dean. — I  ask  are  you  content  with  the  truth  <7as  I  have 
deduced  it  from  J^and  If  If  it  is  faulty,  show  me  where. 

Archdeacon.  —  I  allow  that  it  is  true  as  it  stands,  by  inevi 
table  necessity  of  consequence  from  JaTand  I. 

Dean.  —  Look  now  at  the  first  Article :  "  in  Unity  of  this 
Godhead  there  be  Three  Persons  of  one  Substance,  power, 
and  eternity, — the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost."  I 
ask  you,  is  the  whole  Godhead  in  any  way  greater  than  the 
Three  Persons? 

Archdeacon.  —  Certainly  not. 

Dean.  —  I  ask,  again,  is  the  whole  Godhead  in  any  way  less 
than  the  Three  Persons  ? 

Archdeacon.  —  It  cannot  possibly  be  less. 

Dean.  —  Then  it  is  not  in  any  way  unequal  to  the  Three 


416  THE   THIRTY-NINE   ARTICLES 

Persons ;  wherefore  it  is  equal  to  them ;  and  this  .ZTmust  be 
true :  — 

K.  The  whole  Godhead  is   God  the  Father,  God  the  Son,  and  God 
the  Holy  Ghost. 

Is  this  true  or  not  true  ? 

Archdeacon.  —  Assuredly  true. 

Dean.  —  Now  we  write  «7^and  jBT  together :  — 

J.  God  the  Son  is  verily  and  truly  the  whole  Godhead. 
K.  The  whole  Godhead  is  God  the  Father,  God  the  Son,  and  God  the 
Holy  Ghost. 

From  these  follows  by  the  inexorable  law  of  human  thought, — 

L.  God  the  Son  is  verily  and  truly  God  the  Father,  God  the  Son,  and 
God  the  Holy  Ghost ; 

that  is,  either  God  the  Father  is  nothing  at  all,  and  God  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  nothing,  or  else  both  together  they  make  noth 
ing.  Thus  the  quibble  between  God  and  Godhead  cannot 
save  you  from  the  absurdities  before  demonstrated  from  the 
propositions  A  and  E.  Of  course  you  will  content  yourself 
with  the  same  reply,  —  the  Trg^oo^d/t,'  again. 

Archdeacon.  —  And  of  course  you  know  that  reply  has 
been  sufficient  for  the  last  1800  years.  You  have  said  noth 
ing  new,  —  nothing  that  has  not  been  answered  a  thousand 
times. 

Dean.  —  I  wish  you  all  the  comfort  you  can  have  from  that 
popular  consideration,  and  I  am  exceedingly  obliged  to  you 
for  standing  your  ground  so  well.  It  must  be  a  long  time 
since  two  men  of  our  age  and  reading  spent  as  much  time  on 
these  ancient  quibbles  with  zeros  and  infinities.  I  shall  keep 
a  little  note  of  our  conversation,  which  will  read  as  something 
very  new ;  for  in  truth  no  man  now-a-days  ever  either  con 
descends  to  attack,  or  is  required  to  defend,  those  Athanasian 
contradictions ;  so  that,  while  thinkers  have  felt  ashamed  of 
such  inglorious  assaults,  many  dunces  on  your  side  have  be 
gun  to  fancy  their  positions  inexpugnable. 


AND   THE    CREEDS.  417 

Chancellor.  —  What  dangerous  combustibles  these  old  dog 
mas  are !  I  see  no  way  of  escape,  unless  by  moistening  the 
powder  with  my  distinction  of  personal  and  substantial.  You 
can  go  to  the  Dean,  and  tell  him  that  you  accept  the  conclu 
sion  L  thus : — 

U .  God  the  Son  is  substantially  God  the  Father,  God  the  Son,  and 
God  the  Holy  Ghost 

Archdeacon.  —  Yes,  and  I  shall  put  in  the  verily  and  truly, 
and  say  this,  —  ^ 

L".  God  the  Son  is  substantially,  verily,  and  truly  God  the  Father, 
God  the  Son,  and  God  the  Holy  Ghost.     . 

Of  course  I  deny  that  He  is  such  personally  ;  but  the  Dean 
cannot  say  that  I  deny  the  logical  conclusion  L,  when  I 
declare  that  I  accept  it  substantially,  verily,  and  truly. 

Chancellor.  —  Here  comes  the  Bishop.  We  must  even  ask 
his  Lordship.  Let  me  write  the  whole  argument  from  A,  B, 
C,  D,  down  on  a  clear  page  of  your  pocket-book. 

So  he  wrote  it,  ending  thus :  — 

A.  God  the  Father  is  the  one  true  God ; 

D.  The  one  true  God  is  God  the  Son ; 

Ergo,  salva  Trinitate  in  Unitate. 

P.  God  the  Father  is  God  the  Son ;  id  est, 

E.  God  the  Father  is  substantially  God  the  Son,  although — 
Q.  God  the  Father  is  not  personally  God  the  Son. 

Bishop.  —  It  is  most  perilous  heresy,  or  next  door  to  it,  to 
make  one  Person  of  the  Trinity  the  subject,  and  another  the 
predicate,  of  any  negative  proposition  whatever ;  for  by  so 
doing  you  reduce  them  to  finite  personalities.  I  am  myself, 
but  I  am  not  either  of  you  two ;  the  Archdeacon  is  himself, 
but  he  is  neither  the  Bishop  nor  the  Chancellor,  who  is  also 
himself,  and  is  not  either  of  the  other  two.  This  is  the  way 
in  which  we  affirm,  and  it  is  the  only  way  in  which  we  can 
affirm,  our  own  limited  personalities.  If  now  you  say  that 
the  Persons  of  the  Trinity  are  so  related  really  and  in  Them- 

27 


418  THE  THIRTY-NINE   ARTICLES 

selves,  that  the  Father  can  say,  I  am  Myself,  but  am  not 
You  the  Son,  nor  You  the  Holy  Ghost ;  that  the  Son  can 
say,  I  am  Myself,  but  am  not  the  Father  nor  the  Holy  Ghost ; 
and  that  the  Holy  Ghost  can  say,  I  am  Myself,  but  I  am 
neither  the  Father  nor  the  Son,  —  you  have  three  Persons 
mutually  limiting  and  excluding  each  other ;  that  is,  three 
finite  persons,  and  not  one  of  them  the  Infinite  and  the  Abso 
lute,  which  the  one  true  God  of  necessity  must  be.  Thus 
you  undeify  the  Divine  Persons.  The  same  thing  may  be 
shown  thus :  Suppose  a  man  to  pretend  that  God  the  Son 
is  not  God  the  Father  in  Person,  then  you  can  reason  thus :  — 

God  the  Father  in  Person  is  the  only  true  God ; 
God  the  Son  is  not  God  the  Father  in  Person ;  ergo, 
God  the  Son  is  not  the  only  true  God, 

which  is  absurd  and  blasphemous,  proving  the  absurdity 
of  the  man's  pretence  in  the  second  premise;  for  the  first 
premise  is  infallibly  true ;  and  the  absurdity  remains  if  you 
erase  the  words  "  in  Person  "  from  the  premises. 

Archdeacon.  —  But  surely,  my  lord,  in  some  sense  or  other 
the  Son  is  not  the  Father ;  for  the  Church  clearly  distinguishes 
the  Three  Persons  one  from  the  other,  in  the  Catechism,  the 
Creeds,  and  the  Articles. 

Bishop. — Distinguishes  is  not  the  right  word.  The  Church 
affirms  their  co-existence,  enumerates  them  and  names  them ; 
and  she  takes  care  to  teach  the  child  to  enumerate  and  to 
name  them.  Of  difference  of  existence  apart  from  that 
inherent  in  the  pure  order  of  Personality,  she  says  not  a 
word,  and  above  all  she  never  writes  a  not  between  any  two 
of  them.  "There  is  one  Person  of  the  Father,  another  of 
the  Son,  and  another  of  the  Holy  Ghost : "  this  is  far  from 
affirming  a  distinction  and  difference  between  any  two.  On 
the  contrary,  "  Such  as  the  Father  is,  such  is  the  Son,  and 
such  is  the  Holy  Ghost."  They  are  not  different :  They  are 
other  by  number  and  by  name;  nor  are  They  identical:  They 
are  One  such  as  Another,  qualis  talis,  in  the  Latin.  If  I  may 
be  allowed  as  a  Bishop  to  coin  a  term  of  theological  science, 


AND   THE   CREEDS.  419 

I  should  say  that  the  relation  between  the  Persons  of  the 
Trinity  is  neither  of  identity  nor  of  difference,  but  of  a  cer 
tain  mutual  and  mystical  qualitality.  But  in  these  profound 
mysteries  it  is  always  safest  to  employ  the  exact  words  of  the 
Creeds;  and  it  is  a  perilous  thing  to  swerve  by  a  hair's 
breadth  from  them.  Also  remember  above  all  that  the 
numerical  character  is  not  that  of  three  things ;  not  a  Trinity 
in  triplicity^  but  &  Trinity  in  unity.  I  hope  I  have  made  this 
clear  to  you. 

Archdeacon.  —  As  clear.,  perhaps,  as  the  subject  can  be 
made. 

Chancellor. — Almost  as  clear  as  it  was  to  me  when,  at  six 
years  of  age,  I  learned  my  Catechism.  I  could  count  Them 
and  name  Them  then,  and  I  can  count  Them  and  name 
Them  now;  and  that  exhausts  all  the  conception  that  I  shall 
ever  get  of  the  matter,  except  that  it  is  a  qualitalitive  three- 
ness,  not  at  all  in  threeness,  but  in  oneness. 


INDEX 


TO 


TEXTS   SPECIALLY   REFERRED   TO. 


GENESIS. 
i.  26     

PAGE 

56 
56 
56 
58 
67 

287 
58 

58 
323 

223 

138 
169 
69 

70 
283 
223 
71 

62 

58 
56 
77 
76 
73 

JEREMIAH. 
xxiii.  5     .     .     .     . 
xxxi.  31-35  .     .     . 

DANIEL. 
iii.  25  

PAGE 

76 
73 

999' 

PAGE 

xxvii.  46  .     .     .     .238 
xxvii.  54  .     .     .     .293 
xxviii.  17  .     .     .     .320 
xxviii.  19  ...  95,  301 

ST.  MARK. 

x.  17,  18  .     .     .     .  241 
xi.  12-14  ....    94 
xiii.  32     ....  366 
xv.  39  294 

iii  22  ...... 

xi.  7     

xix.  24     .     .     .     . 

xlix.  10    .     .     .     . 

EXODUS. 
iii.  14  .     .    .     .     . 

vii.  13,  14     .    .    . 

HOSEA. 

xi   1 

292 
223 
80 

99 
79 

77 

80 

77 
223 
322 
245 
243 
267 
299 
299 
91 
303 
299 
295 
71 
298 
300 
267 
293 

NUMBERS. 
vi.  23-26  .     .     .     . 

DEUTERONOMY 
vi  4 

HAGGAI. 
ii.  7-9  

xvi.  12      ....  354 

ST.  LUKE. 

i.  68,  69    .     .     .     .  196 
i.  76     99 

ZECHARIAH. 
ii.  10-13  .     .     .     . 
xii.  10  

vi  13   

ii.  52     ... 
ix  26  .     .     . 

.  364 
.     .  193 

2  SAMUEL. 
vii  14  

x.  22    .     .    . 

xiv  26      .     . 

.     .  303 

.    9,fi» 

MALACHI. 
iii  1     

xxviii.  18,  19    .     .  241 
xxii.  29     ....     90 
xxii.  42,  44  ...  238 
xxiii.  42   .     .     .     .321 
xxiii.  47   .     .     .     .294 
xxiv.  51,  52  ...  320 

ST.  JOHN. 

i.  1  .     .    .  100,  108,  393 
i.  18     396 

vii.  16  

PSALMS. 
ii.  7,  12    .     .     .69 
xvi.  10     ... 
xlv.^6,  7   ... 
Ixxii  
Ixxxii.  1,  6    .     . 
Ixxxix.  26,  27   . 
ex.  i  

ST.  MATTHEW. 

i  23 

ii.  15    

iv.  8-10    .... 
v.  22,  et  seq.  .     .     . 

ix.6     
x.  32    .     .     . 
x.  37    .     .     .     268, 
x.  40    
xi.  27  
xi.  28  29  .         .     . 

PROVERBS. 
viii.  22      .... 

ISAIAH. 
vi.  3     
vi  8     ... 

iii.  34  ... 

.     .  103 

iv.  10  ... 

.     .  324 

iv.  14,  23,  24 

iv.  22  ... 

249,  250 
.     .  250 

xvi.  16,  17     .     106, 
xxii.  41—45    . 
xxiii.  8                . 
xxiv.  14    .          .  95, 
xxv.  31-46    .     266, 
xxvi.  63.  64  . 

v.  17,  18  .     . 
v.  21-30  .    . 
v.  23    .     .     . 
v.  26,  44  .     . 
vi.  32-63  .    . 
vi.  39   . 

272-276 
.     .  252 
.    .  253 
.     .  248 
.     .  249 
.  252 

vii.  14  . 

ix.  6     .     .     .     . 

xi.  3    . 

422 


INDEX  TO    TEXTS. 


vi  57  .     .     . 

PAGE 

.     .  249 

] 
xv  28  

'AGE 
193 

PAGE 

iv.  6     211 

vii.  16,  17      . 
viii  12 

.     .  243 
.     .  247 

xvii.  18-31    .     .     . 
xvii  31          .     . 

185 
83'? 

v.  22-24  ....  217 
v.  30    376 

viii.  12-57     . 
viii.  23,  38,  44 
viii.  28,  40    . 
viii.  42      .     . 
viii.  58      .     . 

•v    8 

.     .  287 
.     .  251 
.     .  244 

.     .  255 

285-290 
9fSO 

xx.  18-36      .     .     . 
xx.  28  
xxii.  16     .... 
xxii.  17-21    .     .    . 

186 
186 
329 
340 

PHILIPPIANS. 

ii.  6-11     .  121,  124,  201 
352 
ii.  19    341 

•y    18 

167 

iv.  13  126 

x.  28,  29  .     . 
x.  30    .     .     . 
x.  31-36   .     . 
x.  37,  38  .     . 
xi  25  .     .     . 

.     .  278 
278-281 
281-282 
.     .  285 
.     .  252 

viii.  29      .... 
ix.  5     .     .     .     114, 
x.  9-13     .... 
x.  13    ...     195, 
vi  °.fi                i  m 

zlu 
373 
120 
347 
327 
91  n 

COLOSSIANS. 

i.  15-17    .     126  sq.  210 
i.  18,  19    .     .     .     .  133 

•  ;      o                                                on-l 

xii.  49,  50     . 

.     .  244 

.  248 

xvi.  25-27     .    .    . 

216 

ii.  9      ...     133,  135 

xiv.  9,  10  .     . 
xiv.  11      .    . 

viv    14 

270,  272 
.     .    40 
251 

1  CORINTHIANS 
12  

3*7 

1  THESSALONIANS. 
iii  11                         341 

•5MV      1  ^      94. 

256 

i  30     

90  R 

viv    93 

OAQ  OAK 

i  31 

195 

xiv   26 

53 

ii.  8      

169 

2  THESSALONIANS. 

xiv.  28      .     . 

•vv    1    3 

257-260 
250 

ii.  11    
iii.  23  

40 
91  fi 

ii.  16,  17  .     .     .     .  341 

xv  15 

244 

377 

1  TIMOTHY. 

xvi.  13      .     . 

.     .  155 

viii.  4-6    .... 

209 

i.  12     345 

xvi.  20-23     . 

.     .  324 

x.  16    

199 

i    1  7                                   213 

xvii.  3  ... 
xvii.  22    .     . 
xviii.  36    .     . 

260-263 
.     .  123 
.    .    90 

xi.  3     
xi.  27-29  .... 
xii.  3    

216 
199 
156 

ii.  5,  6  212 
iii.  16  ...    194,  212 
v  21                   .      -193 

xix.  7  ... 

.     .  293 
53 

xv.  28  

xv  45       . 

214 

375 

vi.  15,  16  .     .     .     .  214 

xx.  17  ... 

xx.  28  ... 

310,  320 
296,  396 

xvi.  23,  24    ... 

193 

2  TIMOTHY. 
ii.  22    329 

ACTS. 

i  3  

916 

i.  2  .    .    .    . 

.     .  105 

xi  31 

216 

TITUS. 

i.  24     .     .     . 

.     .  336 

xii.  8,  9     .... 

349 

ii.  13    112 

ii.  21    ... 

.     .  348 

375 

ii.  24    ... 

.     .  168 

xiii   14 

193 

170 

HEBREWS. 

164 

i  2  140 

iii   16 

171 

3       ...     137  139 

i   1            .          .     . 

1<)9 

iii.  21    ... 
iv.  9-12    .     . 

.     .  169 
.     .  172 

300 

i.  15,  16    .... 
iii.  20  

188 
216 

.  5  .     .     .     .     138,  223 
.  6  ....     140,  323 
8                        ftq  107 

iv  14   

917 

vii.  59,  60      . 
ix  6 

330-335 
339 

.  10-l.J     ....   141 
ii   18    142 

iv     13     14. 

338 

EPHESIANS. 

iv   15                          142 

ix  14  21 

327 

i  3  6  13 

900 

v  7      142 

x.  36    .     . 

.     .  170 

i.  17     

916 

vii.  3    .....  143 

x  42 

339 

ii   18 

^00 

vii.  26  237 

xv.  7    . 

.  337 

iii.  6     , 

200 

xii.  23,  24  ..         .  190 

INDEX   TO    TEXTS. 


423 


ST. 
i  21 

PAGE 

JAMES. 
.  156 

2  ST. 
i.  1  .     .     . 

PETER. 
.     114 

PAGE 

178 

REVELATION. 
i   5  6 

PAGE 
0-7 

ii.  1      . 

.     ...  161 

i.  3,  4  .     . 

179 

i  17                   147 

iv.  12  . 

.     .     .     .159 

iii.  18  .     . 

179 

ii   8 

147 

iii.  1     ... 

146 

1  ST 

.  PETER. 

1  ST 

.  JOHN. 

iii.  5     .... 

193 

i  7  8 

175 

iii.  12  

149 

i  11     . 

.     ...  174 

v.  13-15  . 
on 

.     .     . 

355 

iii.  14  

147 

i.  12     . 

.     .     .     .  175 

v.  5-13     .    .     152 

,  357 

i.  23     . 

.     .     .     .177 

xix.  12     .     .     .     . 

148 

ii.  22,  23 
iii.  21   22 

.     .     .    .  238 

.     .     .     .177 

ST. 
4      .     .    . 

JUDE. 

181 

xix.  16      .     .     .     . 
xxii.  21     .     .     .     . 

149 
150 

iv.  11   . 

178,  355 

25    . 

182 

INDEX 

TO 

QUOTATIONS,  AND    SOME    PRINCIPAL    TOPICS. 


PAGE 

Alford,  Dean  ;  How  to  study  the  Neiv  Testament 200 

, ;  quoted  by  Mr.  Liddon 351 

, ;  his  Revised  Version,  remarks  upon 352 

Aute-Nicene  Fathers,  the  doubtful  language  of 398 

Apocalypse,  Christology  of  the 146-153 

Athanceum,  on  the  Ignatian  Epistles 45 

Atonement,  certain  assumptions  respecting 16,  369,  370 

Baptismal  Formula,  what  the  Apostolic  1 96,  301 

Basilides,  was  he  cognizant  of  the  Gospel  "  according  to  St.  John  "       46 
Bloomfield,  Dr.  S.  T. ;  Notes  on  the  Greek  Testament    ...      95,  210,  338 

, ;  Lexicon  to  Greek  Testament 254 

Bull,  Bishop  ;  Defensio  Fidei  Niccence 355 

Christian  Charity ;  how  related  to  the  Dogma  of  Christ's  Deity     .     382 
Cony  beare  and  Howson ;  Life  and  Epistles  of  St.  Paul    ....    65,139 

Councils,  the  discordant  voices  of 401 

Creeds  ;  the  Three  ;  differences  of,  &c 387-390 

Davidson,  Dr.  S. ;  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament  56,  63,  72,  78,  81,  169 

, ;  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament      .  47,  98,  102,  148,  150,  302 

, ;  Articles  in  The  Theological  Review   50,  58,  62,  85,  86,  150,  169 

De  Bunsen,  Ernest ;  Hidden  Wisdom  of  Christ 43,  52 

Donaldson,  Dr.  James  ;  Critical  History  of  Christian  Doctrine,  frc.     47, 101 

Ellicott,  Bishop,  quoted  by  Mr.  Liddon 113,  344 

Ewald,  Professor,  quoted  by  Mr.  Liddon 49 

, ;  his  Life  of  Christ 168 

First-born,  the  Title  considered 129 

Form  of  God,  meaning  of  the  expression 123,  354,  355 

Fourth  Gospel,  authorship  of  the 44-54,  224 

, ;  Justin  Martyr's  knowledge  of  the 47 

Fuerst ;  Hebrew  Lexicon 57,  78,  80 

God,  how  often  is  Jesus  so  called  ? 396 

God  the  Son,  not  a  Scriptural  Title 219 

Goode,  Dean  ;  Divine  Rule  of  Faith,  frc 402 


426  INDEX   TO   QUOTATIONS,   AND 

PAGE 

Gospels,  the  ;  their  Origin  and  Purity 43,  223,  302 

Hebrews,  the  Epistle  to  the,  Christology  of 137-144 

Hengstenberg  ;   On  the  Apocalypse 146 

Human  perfections ;  can  they  co-exist  with  Personal  Godhead  ?  .  373-379 

Image  of  God,  the  Title  considered 126,  127,  354 

Jesus  Christ;  Catholic  Dogma  respecting  His  Person,  37,  239.  Dif 
ficulties  attaching  to  the  Dogma,  39-42,  105,  125,  130,  224,  230, 
236,  239,  387-390.  His  exceptional  Mission,  Offices,  &c.,  explain 
the  Scriptural  language  concerning  Him,  192,  197,  268.  His  own 
plainest  sayings,  when  not  Ecclesiastically  interpreted,  adverse  to 
the  conception  of  His  Deity,  309,  310. 

Jowett,  Professor*   Commentary  on  St.  Paul 118,  203,  371 

, ;  Essay  on  Interpretation 7,  35 

Leeser,  Isaac  ;  Translation  of  the  Old  Testament 75,80 

Macnight,  Dr.  James  ;  On  the  Epistles 122,  356 

Mill,  John  Stuart 33 

Muller  Max,  Professor  ;  Semitic  Monotheism 57 

Muratori,  the  Canon  of 48 

Neander;  Life  of  Christ 168,267,278,302 

Norton,  Andrews  ;  Statement  of  Reasons,  frc 281,286 

On/y-begotten,  force  of  the  designation 229 

Oxenham,  H.  N. ;   Catholic  Doctrine  of  the  Atonement 398 

Perowne,  J.  J.  S.;   On  the  Psalms 70,83,169 

Philo  Judceus,  his  relation  to  the  Fourth  Gospel 64 

Prologue,  The,  of  the  Fourth  Gospel 99-105, 108 

Prophecy,  Messianic,  the  Three  Stages  of     ........      67-81 

Pusey,  Professor,  cited  by  Mr.  Liddon 78 

Rabbinical  Messianic  Doctrine     ...          83-86, 150 

Religious  faith  and  emotion,  how  far  dependent  on  the  Doctrine  of 

Christ's  Deity  ?  .     .     .     , 384 

Resurrection  of  Christ,  ascribed  to  the  Father's  power 168 

Reville,  Albert;  History  of  the  Dogma  of  the  Deity  of  Jesus  Christ      17,  21, 

389 
Rowland,  David ;  The  Apostolic  Origin  af  the  Fourth  Gospel .     ...       47 

Schenkel,  Dr.  D. ;  Sketch  of  the  Character  of  Jesus 50,249 

Schottgen  ;  Canon  Westcott's  estimate  of 84 

Scrivener's,  F.  H. ;   Collation  of  the  Codex  Sinaiticus,  frc 178 

Self-Sacrifice  minimized  by  the  possession  of  Personal  Deity .     .  380,  381 
Septuagint  Version,  Article  on  the  ;  Smith's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible  .       74 

Socrates,  the  Historian 401 

Son  of  God,  the  Title  considered 224-230 

St.  James's  Epistle,  Christology  of 156-164 

St.  Jude's  Epistle,  Christology  of •  181, 182 

St.  Paul's  Discourses  and  Epistles,  Christology  of 184-219 


SOME   PRINCIPAL   TOPICS.  427 

PAGE 

St.  Peter's  Sermons  and  Epistles,  Christology  of 164-181 

St.  Paul,  his  Witness  to  the  Divine  Unity 208-221 

Stanley,  Dean  ;  Commentary  on  the  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians  .  .  120,  349 

,  , ;  On  the  Litany 360 

Stuart,  Moses,  Professor  ;  On  Future  Punishment 140 

, ;  Letters  to  dimming 135,  271,  281 

Summary  of  Philonian  Logos-epithets;  from  Dr.  Pye  Smith  ...  66 
Sympathy  of  the  Divine  Nature,  not  susceptible  of  Increase  through 

Incarnation 845 

Tayler,  J.  J.  ;  On  the  Fourth  Gospel 47,  50 

Texts,  a  few  in  the  Epistles  supposed  expressly  to  assert,  or  clearly 

to  imply,  the  Deity  of  Jesus  Christ 109-146 

Theophanies,  the,  in  the  Old  Testament 58-61 

Trench,  Archbishop,  Remarks  of  his  on  New  Testament  "Words  170,  325 
Westcott.  B.  F. ;  History  of  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament  ...  48 

,  ;  Introduction  to  the  Stud;/  of  the  Gospels  ...  50,  53,  84,  150 

Winer,  G.  B. ;  Grammar  of  the  New  Testament  Diction  100,  101,  111,  114, 

116,  211,  271,  286 

Wisdom,  in  the  Apocryphal  Books 62 

Word,  or  Logos,  the  Title  discussed 99-103,  225-228 

Wordsworth,  Christopher,  Bishop  of  Lincoln 120,  138,  347 

Worship  of  Jesus  Christ  as  God  ;  how  deducible  from  Scripture  ?  312-359 


Cambridge:  Press  of  John  Wilson  and  Son. 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  SO  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.OO  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


FEB  iy  194J  M 

AUG  if, 

UJa'62KOw 

RciC  0  U-» 

rx  '-  r   0  f\   IQRI 

C^C  3"  B&! 

• 

i) 

LD  21-100m-7,'39(402i 

i  U  I  HOi 


